‘Same Story in New Zealand’

Considerable sums are spent on employing academics and researchers to write reports supporting claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. The Crown Foresty Rental Trust assists Maori to prepare, present and negotiate claims against the Crown, including funding research that is required to support the claimant’s argument. Total assistance from the Trust to claimants in 2010 was $34.5 million. This is seriously big money and has a considerable impact on the direction of research into Maori history …

Such directed efforts have a decided effect on the development and viability of university departments, and on the vision of the past that is told to the public and taught at schools and universities. The subsequent emphasis then influences political debate and the direction of common law in New Zealand. 

“I have worked in that industry. In 2000, I analysed Maori demographic and land information for the northern South Island. The data told a simple story. There was no correlation between land holdings and demography.

“My report was emphatically rejected by the Crown Forestry Trust. They claimed that it would obscure the true nature of the supposed “cataclysm” which afflicted Te Tau iwi between 1850 and 1900.

“However, the data showed that there had been no such cataclysm. In fact, a demographic recovery was evident … But before I was paid, I was required to rewrite my report, to argue a deleterious impact from land loss during that period; that message had to be written in.”
— ‘The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview’,
Dr John Robinson
Those charged with presenting the Crown’s case are supine, to say the least. For example, claimants who didn’t sign the Treaty, such as Tainui, Tuhoe, and Tuwharetoa, should have been immediately shown the door. Groups such as Ngai Tahu, Tainui, and Te Atiawa, who’d already received full and final settlements (some, like Ngai Tahu, several times over) legislated for in Acts of Parliament the preambles of which include the words “full and final settlement” should also have been told to talk to the hand.

“The Tribunal’s recent assertion that Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty when they signed the Treaty is the latest in a long line of egregious tommyrot to exit this body via the fundament. Primary source accounts of what Ngapuhi chiefs said on the lawn at Waitangi when the Treaty was debated certainly suggest otherwise.

“And who can forget the Tribunal’s “Holocaust of Taranaki” statement likening the closing down of the Parihaka Commune (in which not a single person lost their life) to the state-sponsored Nazi slaughter of millions of Jews during WWII?

“Legendary media critic Brian Priestley MBE, who acted as media adviser for Ngai Tahu when that the tribe’s claim was before the Waitangi Tribunal, had this to say about the Tribunal process:

Years ago, I attended several sessions while advising the Ngai Tahu on public relations for their claims. It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth.

There was no cross-examination.

Witnesses were treating with sympathetic deference.

The people putting the Crown’s side of things seemed equally anxious not to offend.

In three months, I don’t think I was asked a single intelligent, awkward question.

I should have been.”

EXACTLY like the Canadian Supreme Court hearings, the TRC hearings, etc. — contrived to produce a preconceived result…
“A number of reputable historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver have voiced concerns that the Waitangi Tribunal has become a self-referencing echo chamber for re-writing New Zealand history.

“In “The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History”, published in 2004, Victoria University historian Dr Giselle Byrnes lays damning charges against the Tribunal, describing its attempts to rewrite history as a “noble, but ultimately flawed experiment”.

“According to Dr Byrnes, the Tribunal is not writing “objective history”. Rather, the reports it produces are deeply political and overwhelmingly focused on the present, in that the Tribunal invariably judges the past by today’s standards rather than those prevailing at the time under scrutiny.

Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha {‘white’} characters and stories.

The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause.”

“Other academics share this unease, but are reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes points out.

I know that many historians have felt some kind of disquiet about the sort of history the Tribunal has been producing over the past few years. They haven’t spoken out about it because most historians have liberal political leanings and they don’t want to be seen as undermining or criticising the whole process.”

“Dr Byrnes also reveals significant concerns about the mass consumption of Tribunal reports by the media and general public. She believes the Tribunal should clearly state its pro-claimant bias, lest lay people reading Tribunal reports be misled by it.

“Ngapuhi kaumatua, David Rankin, a direct descendant of Hone Heke, more recently had this to say about the Tribunal as a nursery for the re-writing of New Zealand history:

The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along. A growing number of New Zealand historians are pointing this out, although most of them are labelled as racist for doing so. Facts are omitted in Tribunal reports, and evidence is shaped in some cases to fit predetermined outcomes. The bias is so obvious, but most historians are too scared for their careers to question the Tribunal’s findings.

[T]he Tribunal … has turned out to be a body that is bringing in apartheid to New Zealand. This sounds dramatic, until you see how it advocates for race-based access to certain areas, and race-based management policies for Crown land, and now, twin sovereignty, which constitutionally is worse than anything that happened in South Africa during the apartheid era.

The Tribunal is a bully. Go against it, and you will be labelled a racist or worse.”

“Clearly, any thinking New Zealander should have absolutely no confidence in anything that comes out of this body.”

–Jack Leslie
Oral evidence is given the same weight as written evidence and is not subject to cross-examination, since according to Maori protocol this is highly disrespectful to a kaumatua. The Tribunal justifies this by asserting that since it is a Tribunal rather than a Court, rigorous evidential standards need not apply…

“…Oral tradition is identified…as no more than self-serving piffle peddled to suit the purposes of its purveyors. Complete horse shit, to put it crudely.”

The Canadian Supreme Court has taken this one step further:
“Rigorous evidential standards need not apply” to evidence presented by aboriginals, and their oral testimony SUPERCEDES the documentary historical evidence, thus rendering the Court judgements a legal farce…

See also:
How The Aboriginal Industry Wins In Court’:
“…In Indian treaty rights cases, the standards of evidence and logic are not what they are elsewhere… In these trials by history (i.e, law office history), watching the highly-skilled, forceful attorneys at work serving the Indian cause was a thoroughly eye-opening experience. From them, I learned much about the selective use — and suppression of — historical and anthropological evidence…”


Deconstructing The Aboriginal Industry’ (Widdowson):
The ‘Aboriginal Industry’ favours Segregation over Integration… The generally dysfunctional character of aboriginal community leadership and administration remains deeply entrenched because of the influence of an industry of lawyers, consultants and other professionals that benefit from the status quo of native dependency. These opportunists encourage a culture of opposition – to virtually any government attempt to improve aboriginal conditions – on the basis of entitlement for past injustices. They then, through their advocacy “research”, construct apologetics that justify aboriginal isolation and marginalization.”


A Warning From Canada‘ (Peter Best):
“I am pleased to respond to an invitation from Dr. Muriel Newman {New Zealand} to provide some of my thoughts on the Indian rights revolution occurring in Canada, and its negative effects on Canadian Crown sovereignty, the rule of law, the Canadian economy and race relations generally between Canadian Indians and the rest of Canadians.”
Post also at: 



ERBL Canada Daily News Feed Blog

ERBL Canada News Feed

ERBL Main Page

ERBL Canada Daily News Feed Blog

ERBL Canada News Feed (Group)



Mail to: endracebasedlawpetition@gmail.com


Thank you from ERBL inc. Canada

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.