At risk of being deafened by groans, let me say that much confusion still exists in the minds of New Zealanders over the content and relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi (Treaty).  Why are we still confused?

The short answer is that the Treaty has been hijacked and shoe-horned into places where it was not designed to go.  Concepts such as “taonga” (translated treasure, including water rights and airwaves) are recent additions.  The Treaty underpins the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal that was accused of corruption by Dr John Robinson, “The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Industry Overview.’ He makes the astonishing revelation that as a Waitangi Tribunal researcher he had to falsify evidence to get paid.” Ngapuhi leader David Rankin also fired a broadside at the Waitangi Tribunal, which he accused of being a bully, inventing history and delivering New Zealand into apartheid.”

We must circumvent the insidious creep into NZ statutes and law of this distorted Treaty.  An ominous statement is found on the Justice Department website:

At the moment, Treaty rights can only be enforced in a court of law when a statute or an Act explicitly refers to the Treaty.

Let’s keep it that way, but is this statement signalling a change in the wind?

The Treaty is very simple, the founding document for the establishment of New Zealand as a British colony and protectorate of the Queen of England.  That’s it.  No further use for it except for nefarious purposes.

The purpose of the Treaty was to recognize and uphold existing Maori and European ownership of land and property; address the lawlessness prevalent at the time, and protect Maori from being exploited in the sale of their land.  Put simply, the Treaty was to establish law and order where there was none.

Various drafts in English and the signed Maori versions (also with variations)  are paraphrased below, with main points highlighted. You don’t have to be a Treaty expert or historian to understand the original document.  It was simply written for good reason.  Clarity of its intent is easily achieved if you don’t have an axe to grind, r a financial advantage to be grasped by misconstruing it, as others have.

Introduction

Queen Victoria recognizes Maori Chiefs and tribes and the people of NZ’s ownership of their land which will be maintained with peace and order because many of her people have already emigrated to NZ and many more are expected to come.

Victoria will establish a NZ Government to put an end to the lawlessness prevalent among both Maori and European.  To this end Victoria appoints William Hobson as her representative and Governor of NZ.

The First Article

Maori give up entire governance of their property to the Queen of England.

The Second Article

The Queen of England gives to the Chiefs, tribes and all the people of NZ possession of their lands, dwellings and property.  

The Chiefs give the Queen and her representative the exclusive right to purchase their land at a price that is mutually agreeable.

The Third Article

The Queen will protect Maori and give them the same rights and privileges as British citizens.

Signed by the Chiefs on 6 February 1840.

The intent of the Treaty seems clear, so why the ongoing dissent?

Immediately after the Treaty took effect, problems arose regarding ownership and the sale of Maori land.  A number of “Native Acts” of Parliament were drafted, debated and referred back to the Crown with many eventually passed into law.   At the time, it was recognised that the Treaty was not designed to address these practical issues on ownership, so why should we expect it to nearly 180 years later?

Of significance was the Native Purposes Appropriation Act of 1862:

The Act created the Native Land Court (renamed the Māori Land Court in 1947) to identify ownership interests in Māori land and to create individual titles in place of customary communal ownership. This change made sales of Māori land easier and saw the beginning of fragmented ownership interests in Māori land. The Act also allowed for up to 5% of Crown-granted Māori land to be taken for public works without compensation.  

[…] The trend towards individual ownership created problems for retaining Māori land. By 1891, Māori had virtually no land in the South Island and less than 40% of the North Island. Much of the land still held by Māori was poor quality and hard to develop.

We must return the Treaty to its rightful place as an important historical document.

Which is not to say we should not address the wrongs inflicted over the years because we should, and have been doing so.

An examination of the current mechanisms in place is well overdue after recognizing wrongs were done to both Maori and European as a result of the distortion of the content and scope of the Treaty.   Many years later we have not reached the place where Hobson and the Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty expected us to be, which was “we are all one”.

No problem sonny, all sorted now, the science was wrong.

The climate change lies that the media have all led us to believe are being busted almost daily.

One of the lies is that sea level rises are threatening Tuvalu which will sink beneath the sea… except it isn’t… it is actually growing:

The Pacific nation of Tuvalu — long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels — is actually growing in size, new research shows.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period,lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

Oh dear. That narrative is now busted.

Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.

“We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing,” he said.

“The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.”

It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels.

The Auckland team says climate change remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.

But it argues the study should prompt a rethink on how such countries respond to the problem.

How about a rethink on telling lies?

Rather than accepting their homes are doomed and looking to migrate to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the researchers say they should start planning for a long-term future.

“On the basis of this research we project a markedly different trajectory for Tuvalu’s islands over the next century than is commonly envisaged,” Kench said.

“While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu.”

The study’s authors said island nations needed to find creative solutions to adapt to climate change that take into account their homeland’s evolving geography.

Suggestions included moving populations onto larger islands and atolls, which have proved the most stable and likely to grow as seas rise.

“Embracing such new adaptation pathways will present considerable national scale challenges to planning, development goals and land tenure systems,” they said.

“However, as the data on island change shows there is time (decades) to confront these challenges.”

So, we have been told that Tuvalu is sinking away and will be wiped out by climate change, and the opposite is happening – it is growing. Well, colour me surprised.

One day this fraud will be recognised for what it is: the world’s greatest fraud perpetrated by scientists who scream and claim they are experts and everyone else should shut up.

A post later today from WH explains some of the science.

-Breitbart

Caving in and aligning yourself with nasty bullies has consequences as Lorde Ella Yelich-O’Connor is finding out.

She is now the poster girl for BDS and in some places supporting them is illegal:

Florida Rep. Randy Fine is calling on venues in Miami and Tampa to cancel scheduled concerts in April by the singer Lorde.

Fine, R-Palm Bay, said, if the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority and the Tampa Sports Authority host the concerts at arenas they own in those cities, it would violate a Florida law passed in 2016.

Under that law, no state or local government can conduct business exceeding $1 million with any organization engaged in a boycott of Israel.  

Fine said that Lorde in December canceled a concert in Tel Aviv, Israel, in support of what’s known as the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement.

On its website, the BDS Movement says it “works to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.”

But Fine has another take on the movement.

“Florida has no tolerance for anti-Semitism and boycotts intended to destroy the state of Israel,” Fine said in a statement issued Thursday. “That’s why Florida passed groundbreaking anti-BDS legislation several years ago.”

Fine contends that “current statutes are clear. Local governments cannot do business with companies that participate in anti-Semitic boycotts of Israel. When Lorde joined the boycott in December, she and her companies became subject to that statute. The taxpayers of Miami and Tampa should not have to facilitate bigotry and anti-Semitism, and I look forward to the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority and the Tampa Sports Authority complying with the law, and canceling these concerts.”

Good job. Actions have consequences. By caving in to two anti-Semitic bullies she has aligned herself with the BDS movement. Now her lucrative US tour looks like it is going to get a haircut. She should compare how much she is going to lose now with how much she would have lost by going to a concert in Tel Aviv. My bet is she would have lost almost nothing by going to Israel, and now she stands to lose millions.

Lorde, a 21-year-old, New Zealand-born singer/songwriter, is best known for her 2013 hit single “Royals.”

Lorde is scheduled to perform April 11 at the Amalie Arena in Tampa, which is owned by the Tampa Sports Authority, and April 12 at American Airlines Arena in Miami, which is owned by the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority.

Fine said both authorities are governmental special districts subject to Florida’s anti-BDS legislation.

In separate letters to the chairmen of the two authorities, Fine wrote: “In late December, Ella Marija Lani Yelich-O’Connor, who goes by the professional name ‘Lorde,’ canceled her upcoming performance in Tel Aviv, amid pressure from BDS activists. While Ms. Yelich-O’Connor canceled her performance in Tel Aviv — a vibrant, progressive and modern city — she has not announced any plans to cancel her upcoming shows in Putin’s Russia. In joining the boycott of Israel, Ms. Yelich-O’Connor made her business enterprises subject to Florida anti-discrimination laws, and disqualified herself and her companies from entering into almost any contract with state and local government.”

“Under Florida law, no local government, including independent special districts, can conduct business exceeding $1 million with Ms. Yelich-O’Connor, and as a result, I must ask you to require the immediate termination of ‘Lorde’ by you or any intermediaries working on your behalf,” Fine wrote. “Should they refuse, I would note that, under Florida law, they will be considered supporting the BDS movement, and will themselves become unable to contract with Florida governments.”

In his letter, Fine wrote: “While I respect every American’s right to free speech — even when that speech is offensive and discriminatory — there is no right to use government to sponsor hate-based businesses. I look forward to the notice of the termination of this business agreement.”

Separately, Fine and Florida Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, in November introduced legislation to strengthen Florida’s existing anti-BDS law by removing the $1 million threshold.

The Florida House on Jan. 31 approved Fine’s House Bill 545 by a 109-3 vote. Brandes’ Senate Bill 780 has been approved by two Senate committees, but has not yet been voted on by the full Senate.

They mean business. Actions have consequences, even cowardly actions. I feel for poor Ella… I do… really:

Bob Jones is a living treasure, and his columns are rippers. Presumably NBR used to think that way which is why they ran his columns.

Well, they did until they showed abject cowardice in the face of outraged snowflakes who don’t like other people’s opinions.

A column calling for a day in which Māori serve the British has been deleted from the National Business Review‘s (NBR) website.

The Sir Bob Jones column argues that instead of a day in which Māoritanga comes to the centre, we should have a day in “appreciation” of the Brits.

Why? Because Sir Bob believes there are “no full-blooded Māoris in existence”, ergo, he argues, Māori should thank the British for their existence on Waitangi Day.

Sir Bob Jones is a property investor, avid opinion piece writer and former politician.

When contacted by Newshub about the removal of the column, NBR had “no comment”, but a statement on Twitter said the column was pulled due to “inappropriate content”.

Why did they publish it then? Obviously, an editor didn’t think it was “inappropriate” when deciding to publish it. It seems it only became “inappropriate” after some snowflakes melted.

I asked about this censorship well before media picked it up.

Cam Slater@Whaleoil

Hey @TheNBR why have you hidden Bob Jones’ latest column? Censorship? His other columns are still there. Was it because some snowflakes were offended? If it was ok to publish why take it down? Is NBR caving to Twitter bullies?

10:14 AM – Feb 6, 2018

• 6

• See Cam Slater’s other Tweets

Twitter Ads info and privacy

That “inappropriate content” was signalled by Sir Bob himself, with the subheading “Time for a Troll”.

“As there are no full-blooded Māoris in existence it indisputably follows that had it not been for migrants, mainly Brits, not a single Māori alive today, including Professor Temaru, would have existed,” he wrote.

“I have in mind a public holiday where Māori bring us breakfast in bed or weed our gardens, wash and polish our cars and so on, out of gratitude for existing.”

On Twitter, the column was called “incredibly racist” and “hate speech”.

Sir Bob was called a “fossil” and a “blatant white supremacist”.

Others dug up NBR‘s sponsors, calling on them to stop advertising with the publication.

In response, NBR pulled the article, saying “Sir Bob Jones’ latest column has been removed from NBR‘s website, due to inappropriate content.”

The Press Council says it has not received any complaints about the article, “but since our complaints procedure requires that complaints are taken to the editor in the first instance it may be that complaints are simply at that stage”, a spokesperson said.

The NBR are gutless. They chose to publish the article – an editor had to decide that –and then, when the perpetually outraged got hurty feelings, they pulled it down.

Bob Jones is only bringing a bit of balance to the market of ideas, after all. It seems that there are no conservative voices left in media these days except us. All the rest are slowly being silenced by virtue-signalling weirdos who seem to be outraged over almost anything.

The answer to inappropriate speech isn’t banning, blocking, withdrawing or censoring it, it is reasoned debate or mocking.

Why can’t the “outraged” debate with Bob Jones on the issue? Instead they want him shut down.

The New Zealand Journal: April 2010 Auckland school children knocking back half a pint.

Scenario : 
Johnny and Rangi get into a fight after school.

The 1950s – Crowd gathers. Rangi wins. Johnny and Rangi shake hands and end up best friends.

2018 – The Police are called and they arrest Johnny and Rangi and charge them with assault.

Both are expelled even though Johnny started it.

Both children go to anger management programmes for three months.

The school board holds a meeting to implement bullying prevention programmes.

Teacher, cane and gown

Scenario :
Robbie won’t be still in class, disrupts other students.

The 1950s – Robbie is sent to the Principal’s office and given six of the best.

He returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt the class again.

2018 – Robbie is given huge doses of Ritalin, becomes a zombie and is tested for ADHD.

Robbie’s parents get fortnightly disability payments and the school gets extra funding from the government because Robbie has a disability.

Country Living Magazine:

Scenario :
Billy breaks a window in his neighbour’s car and his Dad spanks him.

The 1950s – Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2018 – Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care, joins a gang and ends up in jail.

Bonfire Night in our collection –National Science and Media Museum blog
Boy carrying fireworks …

Scenario :
Johnny takes apart leftover fireworks from Guy Fawkes night, puts them in a paint tin and blows up a wasp’s nest.

The 1950s – Wasps die.

2018- The Police and the Anti-Terrorism Squad is called.

Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism, parents investigated, siblings removed from the home and computers confiscated.

Johnny’s Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly in an aeroplane again.

Huffington Post

Scenario :
Johnny falls over while playing rugby during morning break and scrapes his knee.

He is found crying by his teacher, Mary.  She hugs him to comfort him.

The 1950s – In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing rugby. No damage was done.

2018 – Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in prison.

Johnny undergoes five years of therapy and ends up transgender.

Jacinda Ardern stated before the election that she was going to end child poverty.

Now, after making it to PM, she has walked that back somewhat… now she is only going to halve it.

But is that even possible with the silly and unattainable measured based on a percentage of a median? I don’t think it is possible. Neither do others, like Kate Stewart:

Publicly stating that you will halve childhood poverty in 10 years is a big call to make, regardless of your political leanings. But just how realistic and doable is it, honestly?

We would all love to believe it and I’m sure that, with the help of some creative accounting, the less cynical may be swayed, like the fact that in 10 years time most 8-10 years old experiencing poverty now will be classed as adults and will no longer fall under that huge 18-year-old umbrella that recognises them as a child.

So, just how is this going to be fairly achieved and who is actually going to benefit?  

Good question.

Is there some magical way, with the help of fairies and unicorns, that 50 percent of those affected, get a lucky golden ticket that somehow entitles them to be plucked from poverty and mysteriously transported on an enchanted cloud, to the land of the more fortunate while the remaining half get to wallow in their continued squalor for the unforeseeable future.

Where is the line going to be drawn and who will tell those left behind that it’s just too bad, Jacinda didn’t want to lift YOU out of poverty? After all, if she can lift the other 50% out why not the rest?

Perhaps the cold hard truth will be buried in semantics and no-one experiencing poverty today will actually be helped because all the resources will, in fact, be going towards those who have already been predetermined to be born into poverty for the next ten years.

If I’m wrong, then can someone please explain how the escaping 50 per cent are to be selected and on what basis, and what makes them more deserving than those that get left behind?

More good questions.

This is where politicians need to choose their words very carefully. Will childhood poverty really be reduced by 50 per cent overall or will we be halfway towards its eventual alleviation – there’s a freaking gigantic difference between each statement.

It’s a real shame that all policy is never as easy or black and white as when they pass their own ginormous annual salary increases in near record time, or a government department approves mega-thousands for a swanky conference at a 5 Star resort.

I wonder how many of these events will be held to discuss the issue of poverty, while gorging on king prawns, chilled Rose and salmon steaks?

Lots I’d say. Lots of conferences, lots of conversations, lots of virtue-signalling. Not much action.

The money for any initiatives should be going directly to the coalface … not the coals that stoke the conference BBQ, but I’m picking that like almost every government “fix”, the initial bulging budgets will be blown on administrative and set-up costs, worthless studies and research, workshops, and nonsensical ad campaigns that will invariably fail to reach their target audience.

This woman knows a thing or two.

But hey, we’re playing personality politics these days. We have a new, young, pretty-ish PM, adorably pregnant with a budding stay at home dad firmly in tow. Lets all knit booties and sing, John Lennon’s, Imagine and believe because we want to.

Please, be my guest and prove me wrong. There’s nothing I’d love more.

Take a note of my email address and in 10 years time, I want to hear from the affected 50 per cent.Attach the pics of your new affordable housing and healthily stocked fridges, your glowing work references, clean criminal records and proof of non-benefit supplied incomes.

Bonus points will be given for home ownership and proof of world travel, rental properties, boats and bitcoin plus there’s a free gift for those who include photos of the leprechauns, pixie dust and magic wands that helped them on their mystical journey.

Forgive me if not entirely convinced by the claim … I’m failing to reach 5 per cent, let alone 50.

Believe in the personality all you like, I’m convinced her intentions are honourable, but sheer logic tells me that, as a policy,(the only doable bit) it can’t be done without, somehow, fudging the numbers and we all know that fudge is usually the colour of bullsh*t.

Who knew such a person existed… and wrote at the Herald. I can’t wait for the howls of outrage and witch hunts and pitchforks from the Wellington Twitterati and Area64 people trying to get Kate Stewart sacked.

-NZ Herald

Blog owners point of view is that you cant. There is a race in this country that wont work, always with their hand out and moaning that they are picked on. This lot will never work, and to work is the only way to get ahead in life. After all “it’s the white thing to do”

It has been a bad week for Phil Twyford, first up he was accused of using a constituent for political gain and washed his hands of him after gaining government, then he’s been made to look like a hypocrite over foreign land sales when Labour approved the sale of a farm to Canadians.

Now he walked right into Judith Collins trap and has been caught lying like a flatfish.

The Government has flagged changes to allow road taxes to be spent on rail projects.

Confirmation of the proposal came today after National’s transport spokeswoman Judith Collins accused Transport Minister Phil Twyford of saying different things to different people over diverting road taxes to rail.

In a statement issued to the Herald, Twyford said it is the Government’s policy to fund road, rail and public transport out of the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).  

He said this would be done through the Government Policy Statement (GPS) currently being worked on and will be implemented in the next couple of years.

Twyford accused Collins of politicking but signalled changes for a new approach to the NLTF, including more emphasis on safety, more investment in regional roads and modern rapid transit for our cities.

Politicking? That’s what he has been doing for years. It is what politicians do. This man really is a slippery, oily, vainglorious tosspot.

Labour’s flagship rapid transit policy is to build modern trams, also known as light rail, from the Auckland CBD to the airport and from the CBD to West Auckland at a cost of $5 billion.

“It is not possible for the Government to take money from current roading projects in the Land Transport Fund. The Government is bound by legislation to operate within existing funding settings,” Twyford said.

So he says…but he’s lying.

Collins said Twyford had written to stakeholders last November outlining changes to the GPS are being considered,while his office was telling media last week that funding for road upgrades would not be redirected to rail.

“In his rush to erroneously claim that a number of roading projects aren’t under threat because of the Government’s obsession with Auckland rail, Mr Twyford has been saying different things to different people,” she said.

Collins said there is an important principle, adhered to by successive governments, ensuring the specific taxes paid by motorists are invested in newer, safer and better roads – helping keep New Zealanders connected and safe.

“The National Land Transport Fund is paid for by road users to be invested in improving New Zealand’s roading network and it should remain that way,” she said.

Twyford said the Government has not altered any existing roading projects except Auckland’s East-West link and officials are working to identify a lower-cost, better-value option.

The Government is also allowing Auckland Council to introduce a regional petrol tax, believed to be 11.5 cents a litre, which will go to fund a range of projects, including the $3.4b City Rail Link and a share of the Government’s $5b light rail programme.

Caught red-handed and now blustering.

Judith Collins press release has more details:

Transport Minister Phil Twyford has confirmed the Government is considering diverting taxes paid by motorists who want better roads to rail instead, while insisting to media this won’t happen, National’s Transport Spokesperson Judith Collins says.

“This is an important principle, adhered to by successive governments, ensuring the specific taxes paid by motorists are invested in newer, safer and better roads – helping keep New Zealanders connected and safe. Road users pay taxes which are directly returned to them.

“But this now appears under threat, because of the Labour Party’s obsession with light rail in Auckland.

“Mr Twyford has written to stakeholders saying a number of changes to the Government Policy Statement (GPS) on land transport are being considered. Among the proposals is ‘exploring how rail investment is incorporated within the GPS and the National Land Transport Fund’.

“This is in spite of his office telling media last week that funding for road upgrades would not be redirected to rail.

“In his rush to erroneously claim that a number of roading projects aren’t under threat because of the Government’s obsession with Auckland rail, Mr Twyford has been saying different things to different people.

“This desperate grab for more taxes is the result of this free-spending Government realising how much it’s going to cost to build its pet rail line from Auckland’s CBD to the Airport – so it’s looking to divert funding from regional roads as a result.

Busted hard. Further, Judith Collins is bypassing media by speaking directly using Twitter:

-NZ Herald, National party, Twitter

A real restored picture of Abraham Lincoln from 1862. They used this picture to make the penny. There’s a confederate flag in the picture. Quick, Delete this now, burn all copies.

Lecturer outraged as Auckland Confederate flag flyer say ‘it’s part of history’

We live in New Zealand not America yet a busybody academic thinks that she can dictate to Kiwis what flags they are allowed to fly. When flags with swastikas are waved in Auckland during anti-Israel protests people like her say nothing. When New Zealand flags, American flags and Israeli flags are burned during protests in New Zealand people like her happily call it freedom of speech but when a historical flag from a very important part of American history (the Confederate flag) is waved she has kittens over it. It is the Golliwog outrage all over again.

ANDREW GORRIE/The Dominion Post
FLAMING STUNT: A member of the Republic of New Zealand Party burns a flag during a protest at Parliament.