Sir William Gallagher claims Treaty of Waitangi cover-up

Last updated 15:48, November 26 2017

Sir William Gallagher is sticking by comments he made during a speech to business leaders at Waikato Stadium on Friday night.

TOM LEE/STUFF

Sir William Gallagher is sticking by comments he made during a speech to business leaders at Waikato Stadium on Friday night.

Waikato business leader Sir William Gallagher is under fire after claiming the Treaty of Waitangi is a farce.

While Sir William, who made his fortune in fencing, made the comments during a speech to businesspeople at Waikato Stadium on Friday, he was happy to expand on the topic on Sunday.

The Treaty papers on display at Te Papa were fraudulent documents and the concept of the Treaty itself was a rort, he said.

“It was addressed to all New Zealanders, not native New Zealanders,” he said.

“There is no doubt [Māori] gave up sovereignty … and now we have these bloody reparations going on.”

The Foreshore and Seabed Act was an example of the Government handing over the rights of all New Zealanders to Māori, he said.

“Don’t think it’s not happening. Just go to the south end of the beach at Whiritoa and try to go for a walk there. There is netting there – that’s the Māoris trying to fence it off.

“It’s separatism. This is apartheid. There is no definition of Māori … You are Māori if you feel you are Māori.”

Before the arrival of Europeans, cannibalism was rife, he said.

Sir William joined the company his father founded, Gallagher Group, fresh out of university in 1962 and has worked his way up from the shop floor to become chairman and chief executive. It is known internationally for fencing systems.

He was made a member of the British Empire in 1987, a companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 1999, and was knighted in 2010.

Even the words “Māori” and “Aotearoa” are misnomers, he said on Sunday.

“Māori in 1840 meant ‘normal’ or ‘common’. It was not until 1850, 10 years after the Treaty was signed, that it was used to refer to native New Zealanders,” he said.

Aotearoa was the creation of “a guy called Smith”, he said, in apparent reference to Judge Thomas H Smith of the Native Land Court, who used the term in his 1878 translation of the national anthem God Defend New Zealand.

Sir William said he was well aware some might find his views inflammatory, however he stood by them and had numerous sources informing his stance.

He referred to the Hobson’s Pledge campaign, as well as the 2015 book One Treaty One Nation by Hugh Barr, both of which had been championed by former National and Act party leader Don Brash, but also denounced as racist propaganda by others, including former UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne.

The chairman and chief executive of the Gallagher Group had been invited to speak at a Christmas cocktail function hosted by the Waikato branch of the Institute of Directors.

During Sir William’s speech, which also included references to climate change, about half a dozen audience members walked out.

An estimated 70 to 100 people attended the function.

One audience member who declined to be named said Sir William’s speech was not well-received and had left some upset.

He described Sir William as articulate and passionate during his talk.

“His speech started off all very convivial, with Sir William reminiscing … and then it went quite left field,” the man said.

“He started saying the Treaty of Waitangi is a fraudulent document and the copies that exist aren’t true to the original draft. He didn’t seem anti the Treaty but he seemed to think it was a bit of a farce.

“A lot of people were squirming in their seats because the speech was so non PC. It certainly ruffled a lot of feathers.”

The man said many in the audience held Māori governance roles.

Sir William told the group he had done a lot of research on the Treaty and could support his views with reputable sources. He invited audience members to talk to him afterwards about the topic.

“He was basically referring to a big Treaty cover-up.”

Sir William also questioned scientific evidence supporting global warming, saying during the 1970s scientists had predicted a new ice age.

They were topics he was all to happy to expand on in person on Sunday.

He could not recall anyone walking out as he was speaking, but he does recall “a muted reaction” to his thoughts on the Treaty.

“I got the silent treatment a bit,” he laughed. “It was meant to be lighthearted … There was plenty of laughter earlier on, and then none at all.”

But it’s all true

 – Stuff

Kelvin Davis, still the crim-hugging thicko wanting hardened criminals out of jail and on your streets

by Cameron Slater on November 26, 2017 at 8:30am

Left-wing journalism Anthony Hubbard, has a piece about the governments current klutz, Kelvin Davis

Kelvin Davis was a killer in opposition. His relentless campaign of prison leaks and revelations helped end the career of National’s hapless minister of corrections (the since-retired and forgotten Sam Lotu-Iiga).

Now Davis is the minister of corrections himself and it’s all sunshine and good cheer. “Exciting” is a recurring word.

The friendly MP for Tai Tokerau is excited, for instance, about the revolutionary policy of slashing the prison population.   

 

Yeah, because slashing the prison population and spilling more than 3000 violent ratbags onto the streets is a real vote winner.

The first one that kills someone is going to be on his head.

No Kiwi politician or party has seriously proposed this before. New Zealand remains one of the keenest jailers in the West, and governments of both sorts have outbid each other on law and order.

And he will be the last who does when it goes pear shaped.

“Governments for a long, long time have tried to outdo each other as being tough on crime. We actually need to be smart on crime.

Labour promises to cut the prison muster by 30 per cent in 15 years, but how? If you ask Davis, you get a wash of generalities – “multifaceted solutions” – and pledges to examine the research.

If we are going to be smart on crime then why is the dumbest hammer in the bag doing the job?

Instead of concentrating on the prisons – they are just marshalling yards – you need to consider the wider problems that produce an ever-expanding horde of prisoners. These “drivers” are what matter most.

“We actually have to look at things like the mental health situation, we have to look at the housing situation, we have to look at poverty, we have to look at how our people are being treated now – because one of the biggest drivers of the prison population is violence.

“How do we address that? What are the drivers of violence? Is it having a lack of money, is it having no hope, and despair? …

“What are the drivers? And we have to work that out and then base our solutions on that.”

The Government has “to look at all the options”.

What a load of horse dung. While he is having “conversations” and working out what can be done then these bastards need to be locked up. It is what voters want. We want the bad bastards off the streets and we really don’t care what happens to them in prison either. Crim-hugging womble politicians like Kelvin Davis think they have all the answers but I bet he won’t offer up his place as a halfway house for them.

Don’t we need something a little more specific? Will cutting the prison population, for instance, involve cutting prison sentences?

“Possibly, yeah. We need to look at all the options. We need to make decisions based on decent evidence, based on what’s worked.”

What about letting people out earlier on bail? This, too, seems one of the options, though “we’ve got to keep the country safe. This is a balancing act, this isn’t a quick fix. We keep the country safe but also address the types of crime, also the drivers of crime.”

Davis’s vagueness raises questions about how much research he and Labour did before deciding on the policy. Or is he just keeping his powder dry for the upcoming political battle?

Certainly he understands that prison reform faces huge political problems, including the resistance of many voters.

Davis is just like his leader, a lightweight long on sloganeering, short on specifics. Labour already has a soft on crime reputation and with attitudes like that it deserves it. The voters will tear them apart. As I said, the first ex-prisoner released by Davis and Labour will be the poster child for a law and order backlash with Ardern and Davis being sent out on a tumbril.

I hope they do release 30% of the prison population back on the streets. They are all likely to come from Labour electorates so the uproar and backlash will be from their own voters. The only fear I have of such an action is that someone is going to get killed because of the a stupid crim-hugging decisions of an insulated and out of touch womble politician. Holding that politician to account is the easy part, bringing that victim back to life is impossible.

Davis made this rod for his back, with all his grandstanding. I can’t wait for the next stabbing, or bashing, or murder in one of Davis’ prison to occur. He will get his grandstanding right back at him.

He still has some rather impertinent questions to answer about how he got elected in 2014 while his party was campaigning against #dirtypolitics.

So we didn’t have a crisis and now we need a stocktake to work out if it is still there?

by Cameron Slater on November 26, 2017 at 10:30am

Phil Twyford has ordered a stocktake of housing to find out the status of the crisis he, Labour and the Media party have all told us about for years.

Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford has commissioned three of New Zealand’s leading experts to provide an independent stocktake of the housing crisis.

“For too long, the previous Government refused to accept the housing crisis and establish the scale of the problem we face,” says Minister Twyford.

“For instance, it was only once the Labour-led Government came to office that we learned MBIE’s official figures show a nationwide shortfall of 71,000 houses and that projections show house building would fall if not for KiwiBuild.

“The previous government never acknowledged or accepted the official numbers, and also refused to accept its own official definition of homelessness.

“Shamubeel Eaqub, Philippa Howden-Chapman, and Alan Johnson are among New Zealand’s foremost experts on housing. Their insight will be invaluable.

 

Nice bunch of left-wing focused individuals.

The question has to asked: Why didn’t Phil Twyford do this research before he launched into declaring a housing crisis and before the election?

“This report will provide an authoritative picture of the state of housing in New Zealand today, drawing on the best data available. It will put firm figures on homelessness, the state of the rental market, the decline of homeownership, and other factors in the housing crisis.

“The Labour-led Government is already pushing ahead quickly with initiatives to make housing more affordable and healthy, including banning overseas speculators, passing the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill, cancelling the state house selloff, and setting up KiwiBuild. This report will help the Government refine and focus that work where it is most needed.

“I have instructed officials to provide the experts with any and all information they request. The years of spin and denial are over,” says Phil Twyford.

The report will be due before Christmas.

With a supposed 71,000 houses needed I wonder what Phil Twyford is going to say about the emails from his boss to Housing NZ to provide 150 houses for incoming ratbags from Manus Island and their families?

Won’t that make the housing crisis worse? What about the emails going back that say Kiwis first for houses which then got another one in reply asking for options on hotels for the ratbags?

Didn’t Labour criticise the government for putting people up in motels? Oh that’s right they did.

More importantly does Twyford, as Housing Minister know his boss is dealing direct with Housing NZ?

 

-Labour party

Child neglect not child poverty is the correct term

by Cameron Slater on November 25, 2017 at 8:00am

poverty

Fairfax columnist John Sergeant makes a valid point about all these claims about child poverty:

Summertime and the livin’ might be easy but some of our kids still endure tough times through no fault of their own.

Even so, I still cannot get my head around what “child poverty” is exactly.  

 

It is a rubbish title and the way of measuring it is even worse.

But hey, Jacinda is going to eliminate it, she’s promised.

I understand it’s bandied around as a measure of social failure but those using the term seem to say nothing of explanation as though it’s enough to say it and let others figure out the rest for themselves, but quite frankly it’s beyond me.

I understand that some children live in poverty, conditions which by first world standards are less than acceptable but by other standards aren’t too bad at all.

Especially when you see kids literally starving in countries where social welfare doesn’t exist.

Back in Godzone, cold and damp housing is a genuine issue for holding kids back from enjoying a decent childhood.

Living in substandard conditions is tragically a part of the poverty trap with rents exorbitantly high and there’s often no choice for families to accept it.

But sending children to school hungry isn’t acceptable and I remain convinced that the term “child poverty” is becoming more of an excuse for poor parenting and in actual fact the term that should be used is ‘child neglect’. 

It’s a parent’s inherent responsibility to care for their children full stop, not to pass the buck onto the government or anybody else.

If you can’t feed them, don’t smoke, drink and all the rest of it.

Spot on. Too may people want to pass the buck to the government. If government is the answer then it was clearly a stupid question.

Kids come first so to have no shoes or rain jackets in the winter and empty bellies is in many cases neglect.

To some degree it’s actually encouraged as various organisations, for instance, feed kids at school unconditionally.

So oddly enough there’s no incentive for parents to feed them at home. Then guess what?

More and more kids turn up hungry and the stats climb so the end of year reports say that “child poverty” is increasing when in actual fact it’s no more than a self-fulfilling prophecy based on the children becoming victims of learned helplessness by parents.

I have seen many parents with very little indeed go hungry themselves to make sure their kids turn up at school proud to be dressed smart, looking smart and acting smart.

That’s how it works but when more and more charities with the best of intentions, inadvertently support a flawed system, I really wonder where our priorities are.

The priorities of the socialists and globalists like Jacinda Ardern, is to have as many people reliant on the state as possible.

We are losing our can do attitude…and replacing it with an entitlement and bludger attitude.

This one lives here, but Jacinda wants to import 150 more just like him

by Cameron Slater on November 25, 2017 at 9:00am

They live amongst us…terrorists that is.

A 19-year-old Dannevirke man appeared in the Palmerston North District Court yesterday after being charged with possessing terrorism propaganda.

Jordayne Evan Thomas Madams faces 10 charges of possessing objectionable material consisting of child sex abuse videos and images, and terrorism material.

He made no plea when he appeared in court and a police spokesperson said he was due to appear in court on December 7 – where he would be required to enter a plea.

According to court documents, that included a text file of The Terrorist’s Handbook, which gives instructions on how to assemble bombs and explosivesas well as Isis beheading videos.  

 

It was also alleged Madams had videos showing Isis, a jihadist militant group predominantly operating in Syria, executing a captured soldier with a machinegun and carrying out a beheading.

The child sex abuse material involved photos and videos of preteen and teenage boys and girls in suggestive poses or taking part in sex acts, according to court documents.

If found guilty of the terrorism material charges, Madams will join a small group sentenced already.

In 2016, Imran Patel was the first person in New Zealand convicted possessing, making and distributing the objectionable material and was sentenced to three years and nine months’ jail.

Police found 62 objectionable videos showing extreme violence or cruelty, as well as copies of an Isis-endorsed online magazine, when they searched Patel’s home in 2015.

Activity supporting terrorist activities, including fundraising, is an offence under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

This is a locally grown terrorist and bad bastard.

Word on the street is that Jacinda Ardern is directly negotiating with Papua New Guinea to bring 150 more ratbags in from Manus Island…and their families.

We have more than enough of our own ratbags thanks.

Note also he is a sufferer of Silly First name Syndrome. No good was ever going to come of him.

 

-NZ Herald

Feminist double standards

by Cameron Slater on November 24, 2017 at 9:30am

No one does sanctimony, hypocrisy and double standards like a feminist. Add in the fact that she is a journalist and you really start to wonder about the motivations.

Ms Cuming is clearly out to ‘get’ Mr Bunting and claim a scalp in the name of 4th wave feminism.

This story is yet another example of ‘do as I say, and not as I do’.

It appears that Ms Cuming is guilty of some shocking double standards.

Only earlier this month, she was guilty of stalking a man in local park, taking photos of him and then broadcasting them to the world on Twitter (on 4th Nov) for the purpose of sexual objectification.

She’s been widely called out on social media for her apparent double standards, but she is strangely silent on the issue.

Note that one of the commenters on her Twitter account is Mary Ann Gill, an elected Waikato DHB member. You can bet your bottom dollar that if this had been a male councillor (or any male for that matter) taking photos of women in parks for a similar purpose, all hell would break loose, the police would be called, they’d be sacked etc etc.

Why does Ms Cuming, who is also in the public eye and in a position of influence and responsibility, manage to get away with this?

Why the double standards, complaining about a lewd joke but at the same time objectifying a bloke exercising at a playground?

Will anyone in the media, or indeed TVNZ follow up Ms Cuming for her double standards?

That’s it, let them all out, no word in Maori for “guilty”

by Cameron Slater on November 22, 2017 at 1:30pm

Apparently all Maori in prison should be let out and proclaimed innocent, because…get this…there is no word in Maori for guilty.

A Māori lawyer and social justice advocate says it’s time to abolish New Zealand prisons and take lessons from how law and order was historically approached by Māori.

Does he mean hacking off their heads, tattooing them and selling them to Poms? That sort of justice?

Moana Jackson will give an address tonight in Wellington explaining why Māori and other indigenous peoples didn’t have prisons prior to colonisation.

Mr Jackson said the United Nations and other international human rights bodies have found the operation of prisons in this country to be in breach of human rights.

“The bias and prejudiced way in which various parts of the criminal justice system operates ensures there is a disproportionate number of Māori men and Māori women in prison.

“I think part of that discussion is to look at indigenous nations around the world because there is no indigenous nation in New Zealand, or Australia or Canada or the United States or South America – that have a history of prisons, yet they all have a history of humans causing harm.”

Mr Jackson said Māori traditionally dealt with crime differently, with an emphasis on restoring the relationship between the person who caused harm and the person whom harm was inflicted upon.

I call bullshit on that. He makes out Maori were all sweetness and light and sat around and had a nice meeting to determine that someone was wronged and what the solution was. Those taiaha, mere and other weapons were just decorative weren’t they?

He said Māori sought to impose sanctions for the wrong and in the long-term, rebuild the relationship that was damaged.

“In the Pākehā system if someone is charged with something the question they’re asked in court is do you plead guilty or not guilty?

“There’s no word for ‘guilty’ in the Māori language and so the question asked instead was, ‘do you know who you have harmed’? In other words, do you know what the relationship or the potential relationship is that has been damaged?”

Using his logic, there was no word for dole, or welfare, or benefit, or smokes, or Lotto, or beer, or gambling either…but Maori seem to availed themselves of those quite a fair bit.

I am however perplexed why anyone bothers listening to Moana Jackson. A quick check of the Maori dictionary suggest he is correct…sort of. The is no word for guilty in Maori…there are actually lots of them.

harakore

1.(stative) be innocent, blameless, faultless, guiltless, honest, not guilty, sinless.

E hara ana, e harakore ana rānei, te herehere? (MM.TKM 29/2/1856:13). / Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?

and;

mau tangetange

1.(noun) found guilty.

He mau tangetange te whakataunga a te kōti ki runga i a Hīroki, kātahi ka whakahaua kia patua mate rawa (TTR 1994:28). / The decision of the court was that Hiroki was guilty and he was sentenced to death.

and;

ngākaukino

3.(noun) bad heart, bias against, ill-treatment, guilty intent, prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, malevolence.

He kupu ēnei nā Pāpaka mō te ngākaukino o āna mātua ki a ia (NIT 1995:291). / These were words by Pāpaka referring to his uncles’ ill-treatment of himself.

Why don’t reporters check these claims that these so-called advocates make?

Explaining is losing, luv…Coalition’s billion tree promise looks rather hollow now

by Cameron Slater on November 23, 2017 at 8:30am

The Coalition promised to plant an extra billion trees over ten years, or 100 million trees every year for ten years.

It turns out that they are now claiming half of those will be planted by the private sector…not the government at all.

NBR reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern rejects criticism that the government splitting the load of planting its goal of one billion trees a year with the private sector is a backdown.

Forestry Minister Shane Jones says the goal of planting 100 million trees a year for 10 years will be shared between the private sector and the government, with both planting 50 million trees each a year.

Mr Jones and the Coalition government have been slammed by National economic and regional development spokesman Simon Bridges, who says the government is backpedalling.

“[Mr Jones’] problem is that the target is recorded unambiguously in both the Labour-New Zealand First coalition agreement and the Speech from the Throne on the new government’s programme.”

That speech said: “This government is committed to a new planting programme, planting 100 million trees a year to reach a billion more trees in ten years.”

The prime minister denies Mr Jones’ comments represented a backtrack.

“We have always been really clear we see a role for the forestry service to work alongside those in the private sector to ensure we’re supporting the planting of those trees.”

She says the goal of planting one billion trees – which she admits is ambitious – was always meant to be a collaborative effort between the government and the private sector.

She says it would be “splitting hairs” to try to decipher what the mix of private and public sector planting would be.

 

Sorry luv, you can’t claim private sector plantings as your own. It is isn’t splitting hairs. It is calling bullshit on your claims.

Shane Jones’ antics in the house over this now make a mockery of the promises.

I’ve never seen a givernment go backwards so fast nor make so many utter stupid mistakes like this one.

I said this three years was going to be fun and so far it is at least a laugh a day.

I think we are going to see a lot of Jacinda’s angry, scowly face in coming months.

The Muppet Show continues, Chippie flip flops after his boss says otherwise

by Cameron Slater on November 23, 2017 at 9:00am

Credit: Luke

The Muppet Show that is our government continued yesterday.

NewtalkZB reports:

Labour has released costing estimates for its boost to student loans and allowances – just hours after Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern defended not doing so.

Education Minister Chris Hipkins announced yesterday the pledge to boost student allowances and student loan living costs by $50 a week was now in place.

However, his release didn’t include cost estimates, and National’s finance spokesman Steven Joyce later challenged Labour to front on its numbers.

Hipkins said the costings would be released in the coming weeks when detail on another policy – fees-free tertiary education – was made public, given that change would affect overall student numbers.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spent much of her stand-up with media today defending the lack of costing information, saying delaying the release would mean “the most robust numbers possible”.

However, later in the afternoon Hipkins’ office released preliminary costings that were taken to Cabinet, estimating the total cost of the two increases at $200m in 2018/19, rising to $210m by 2021/22.

That is lower than the estimate of $270m a year, given during the election campaign.

Labour has not released estimates of up-take for the extra loan and allowance money.

Is there anyone who believes Labour’s numbers?

This government, the Labour members especially are making screw up after screw up. They have been in government 27 days and so far it has been disaster after disaster, flip flop after flip flop.

Chris Hipkins must be right up there for the first minister to get a kick in the balls from Heather Simpson. He is showing he is but a child at this politics thing. He seriously needs to be sent to the naughty step.

He’s made him PM look like a right chump. He won’t be getting the concern face, he will be getting the scowly face about now.

Helen Clark would never have tolerated this level of incompetence.

Controversial Fairfax Media cartoons ‘insulting’, judge says

Last updated 11:55, November 22 2017

Labour MP Louisa Wall says the cartoons were insulting.

James Ireland

Labour MP Louisa Wall says the cartoons were insulting.

Controversial cartoons featuring negative stereotypes of Māori and Pasifika were “insulting,” a High Court judge has said.

But whether they incited “public hostility” against these ethnic groups and breached the Human Rights Act was the point up for debate at Auckland’s High Court on Wednesday.

Labour MP Louisa Wall is appealing a decision by the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which rejected Wall’s complaint that the cartoons were “insulting and ignorant put-downs of Māori and Pacific people”.

One of the Al Nisbet cartoons.

Al Nisbet

One of the Al Nisbet cartoons.

In the High Court in Auckland, Justice Matthew Muir said the aim of the hearing was to “look afresh” at whether there was a breach of the Human Rights Act. “No-one is contending that the cartoons were not insulting, we certainly all regard them as insulting.”

READ MORE
Labour MP Louisa Wall takes Fairfax to court
Tribunal finds ‘provocative’ cartoons did not breach Human Rights Act
Cartoons: negative, insulting

“It is a grossly inappropriate generalisation of Māori parents. What is insulting about the cartoon is to suggest that this is the exclusive preserve of Māori and Pasifika parents.

The Marlborough Express Al Nisbet cartoon

Al Nisbet

The Marlborough Express Al Nisbet cartoon

“This is about how we apply the balance of the test of Section 61.”

Section 61 of the Human Rights Act states the cartoons must be “threatening, abusive, or insulting” and “likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons” in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.

In her opening remarks for Wall, human rights lawyer Prue Kapua said the cartoons did bring Māori and Pasifika into contempt. “It is colouring the view of general people who are looking at those cartoons.”

“How does this not bring Māori and Pasifika into contempt, if they are defined as welfare bludgers and negligent parents and consumed with smoking, drinking and alcohol?”

Justice Muir said he agreed, but he was not convinced most people would take the cartoons at face value.

“The tribunal took the view that in the context of a ‘free market of ideas’ in an essentially socially liberal country, the reasonable person would concede that, albeit incredibly tasteless, the cartoons were not likely to incite hostility or bring people into contempt.”

Most people would say the cartoons were simply cartoonist Al Nisbet’s “warped view of the world,” he said.

During the first hearing, on November 1, Justice Muir expressed discomfort with hearing the case alone.

He acknowledged Wall’s work in sponsoring marriage equality legislation in parliament that granted same-sex couples the right to get married, and said it was public knowledge he lived with a male partner.

While the lawyers present did not object to Justice Muir’s jurisdiction, he went on to appoint Dr Huhana Hickey and former National MP Brian Neeson as lay members on the panel to hear the case alongside him.

Wall and South Auckland youth group Warriors of Change took Fairfax Media and The Press and Marlborough Express newspapers to the tribunal over two drawings by cartoonist Al Nisbet about the Government’s breakfast in schools programme in 2013.

Fairfax Media, which publishes the two newspapers, also owns Stuff.

One of the cartoons depicted a group of adults, dressed as children, eating breakfast at school and saying “Psst . . . If we can get away with this, the more cash left for booze, smokes and pokies”.

The other showed a family sitting around a table littered with Lotto tickets, alcohol and cigarettes and saying “Free school food is great! Eases our poverty and puts something in you kids’ bellies”.

The tribunal ruled in May while the cartoons may have “offended, insulted or even angered”, they were “not likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins”.

It said for that reason their publication was not unlawful.

Wall said at the time she was disappointed with the tribunal’s decision, and appealed it to the High Court.

 – Stuff

Note: Cartoons are very close to the truth