2007 Horomia Minister Of Maori Affairs told the Maori Party to get their heads out of the clouds, he was referring to the Maori Party’s support for the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People which was rejected by the Labour Government in 2007 for very good reasons

However John Key under the National Govt seeking more support from the Maori Party arranged for Deputy Leader of the Maori Party to secretly attend the UN to sign the UNDRIP against Crown Law advice.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create Partnerships, Principles nor the coined phrase Indigenous Peoples.

See You Tube Video Link



Te Tiriti o Waitangi Blog Posts View all Categories


‘The Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create Partnerships nor Principles’

Nothing in this ACT shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the Principles of the Treaty. First tie the Principles of the Treaty had been documented) There are NO Principles in the Treaty Of Waitangi 1840.

1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act. While the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act was about the settlement of historical grievances, the 1985 Amendment Act was a very different matter. The recognition of iwi-Māori rather than pan-Māori as the inheritors of Treaty settlements established the reviving tribe as both political player and economic corporation.

1985 Amendment Act, Deputy Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer agreed to Sir Hepi Te Heuheu’s request to insert the clause “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” into Section 9 of the State-owned Enterprises Act 1986. This is the first reference in legislation or policy to the principles of the Treaty – indeed, the first indication that the Treaty has principles. Parliament did not define the principles — an unconscionable failure which opened the way for the courts and government officials to determine what is probably one of the most important political events of the 20th century. Treaty principles, including that of partnership, now appear in almost all legislation.

1987 Court of Appeal decision stating that the Treaty established a relationship “akin to a partnership”. Although the judges likened it to the obligation partners in a partnership had they did not say that the Treaty actually created a partnership. Nor did it. However, “partnership” was quickly picked up by the Waitangi Tribunal and by the 1987 Iwi Leaders’ Forum. From that time this powerful interest group has achieved enormous success in claiming constitutional change and ownership rights. “Partnership” is the justification. The possibility that the He Puapua Report will be implemented either in full or modified form demonstrates the group’s success to date. Horomia speech

.  37 pages pdf




It appears that Judicial Activism is high on the list of historical events since the signing of the original Te Tiriti o Waitangi of February 1840 and the collaboration of politicians who have no conscience as to leading New Zealand into a state of apartheid.

The Prime Ministers Cabinet Guidance Rules for all political parties and admin Staff adopt not just the Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori Version, but also the English Version and whatever they want to adopt in between. 12TH October 2023 it was reported that David Seymour talking about enshrining the Treaty’s principles, properly understood, in our constitutional settings, ACT would promote the Treaty as it was actually signed, not the divisive version invented by judges and academics.

“ACT has consistently said the Treaty is a taonga and that its principles provide the basis for a modern liberal democracy – the government is sovereign, its job is to protect property rights, and we all have equal rights and duties. ACT says those principles should be codified in legislation and New Zealanders should be allowed to vote on them, rather than allowing the courts to surreptitiously change our constitution.

I personally have a problem with David Seymour’s article when he states “the ‘Principles’ of  Te tiriti o Waitangi being codified in legislation and New Zealanders should be allowed to vote on them”. Firstly Act refers that they have consistently said  the Treaty is a Taonga  (which lacks direct translation into English). This refers to a Maori language word that refers to ‘treasured possession in Maori Culture’.

This is the founding document of New Zealand,. Article 1 of the Te tiriti o Waitangi says that the Queen is to be the Sovereign, that Maori are to be her subjects, with the rights and privileges of subjects like everyone else, no less and no more than anyone else.  The Treaty is not a valid treaty in International law, It does not have an independent legal standing as part of law of NZ. It only become part of the law of NZ in situations where Parliament declares it as a Statute. Although Parliament does refer to the ‘Principles’ of the Treaty, parliament has never defines them. None of the various lists o ‘treaty principles’, not even the list decided on by the Courts, accurately reflects what the Treaty actually says.

The suggestion that Maori did not understand themselves to be yielding, ceding Sovereignty by the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is dishonest, not true.  Te Tirit o Waitangi (the original Maori Version) did not create ‘Principles’. If the Treaty was embedded in the NZ Constitution, the rights of Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi would be recognized and affirmed.  Maori would be legally entitled to pursue claims for natural resource for example water and other natural resources , as ‘taonga’ forever. This means, public and private property would have ‘Treaty Principles’ imposed on it. Courts would be able to rewrite Acts of Parliament. The Waitangi Tribunal would be able to make recommendations that ‘privately owned land’ be returned to Māori ownership. Māori would have precedence over ‘non-Māori’ in the distribution of ‘health care’, education and welfare. Constitutionally based ‘treaty rights’ could entitle criminals with Māori ancestry to preferential treatment, to gentler sentences.

In 2005 the ‘Treaty Tribes Coalition, especially the South Island tribe Ngai Tahu maintained “that the greatest shortcoming of NZ’s current constitutional arrangements is their failure to fully recognize the fundamental significance of the Treaty Of Waitangi”.  This is when Peter Dunne United Futures leader was undertaking a sweeping review of NZs Constitutional arrangement.

Two constitutional groups namely Auckland University Prof., Margaret Mutu convened a Iwi Leaders Constitutional Working Group, it was a self appointed group pushing for a separatist constitution based on the 1835 Declaration of Independence that resembled the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. David Round law lecturer spoke for a further group, the Independent Constitutional; Review Panel thus issuing a ‘Declaration of Equality’. Thus rejecting reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, and its Principles in any constitutional document, wanted such references to be removed from all existing legislation, wanted race-based parliamentary seats abolished and also he wanted race based representation on local boards abolished, also the Waitangi Tribunal abolished.

Some good ideas there, however the Te Tiri of Waitangi is NZ’s Founding Document, and it should never have been legislated upon. The original Maori version of the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi should be celebrated in its original glory, in which there were no Principles or Partnership in this important document. In this case “every law in New Zealand would be liable to challenge as being in breach of ‘the rights of the Maori people’. Hence no settlement claims

The corrupted Te Tiri o Waitangi runs parallel with the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights in which Iwi Elite and the Māori Party are pushing. Where Arderns Cabinet Office signed the first draft of this. November 21st -23rd 2023 the Aotearoa NZ Centre for Indigenous Peoples and the Maori Law Review and other Iwi parties convened a conference at Auckland University the theme being ‘Korero Constitution’ Nanaia Mahuta opened the second day of the meeting with a speech.

There were overseas guests in attendance.. It was reported that “discussion, advice, information took place where the govt had an opportunity to engage with academic experts on constitutional law and Indigenous rights”.  Thus transforming NZs Constitution. Recognizing Māori Rights in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, referring to the Declaration of Independence and the UNDRIP. When ACT Party David Seymour said that the Principles of the Te Tiri of Waitangi should be codified. (The original founding Māori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi created NO Principles, its been politically corrupted. So now he wants to recognize there are Principles and codify them?

I personally believe that there should be no acknowledgement legally of the UNDRIP in legislation or otherwise.  Just amend the Te Tiriti O Waitangi back to its original state with no principles and No Partnership’. Take all Principles and Partnership pertaining to the Treaty out of legislation. It was legislation that corrupted the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, now another corruption by recognizing there are Principles to codify

I myself do not trust Government Referendums. The People of NZ have no end decision making rights, they have no legally binding legislation in the Parliaments Initiated Referendum Act. But the Govt have binding and non binding rights in the Act. People trusted the govt and they corrupted Te Tiriti o Waitangi the founding document of NZ. WHY WOULD YOU TRUST THEM?

The legislated Principles and the Partnership corruption of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi runs in parallel to the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indifenous Peoples. This is why NZ Govt under Labour refused to sign it on 13th September 2007 (However in 2010 John Key arranged secretly with Co Leader of Maori Party Pita Sharples to visit the UN, to sign the UN Declaration)

13th September 2007, Rosemary Banks represented NZ and spoke on NZ’s behalf. This is why it was rejected.(Canada, Australia, US and NZ rejected the UNDRIP in 2007). Rosemary Banks explained to the gathering at the UN Assembly.  NZ had a role in implementation of the text of the  UN Declaration prior to 2007, however  she said “with deep regret NZ is unable to support the text presented before the UN Assembly. There was difficulty with four provisions in the Declaration that were incompatible with NZ’s Constitutional and Legal Arrangements.

1)The Treaty of Waitangi  (2) The governing for the GOOD OF ALL OF NZ”S CITIZENS’. (3) Article 26 on LANDS & RESOURCES,  (4) on REDRESS (COMPENSATION)  (5) Articles 19 and 32 on RIGHT OF VETO OVER THE STATE

1.A) The provisions on Lands and Resources could not be implemented in NZ as (Article 26) stated that Indigenous Peoples had a right to own, use, develop or control lands and territories that they had traditionally owned, occupied or used.

FOR NZ THAT WOULD MEAN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Also means under this scope it require recognition of Rights to Lands now LAWFULLY OWNED by OTHER CITIZENS.

This does not take into account the CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS and LAND TENURE SYSTEMS of Indigenous Peoples concerned. It also implies that Indigenous Peoples have rights that others do not have.

ARTICLE 28 on REDRESS (COMPENSATION) Takes no account of the fact that land might now be occupied, or legitimately owned by others, or subject to numerous different overlapping Indigenous claims. The UN Declaration implies that Indifenous Peoples have a right of VETO over a democratic legislature and also NATIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

The UNDRIP implied different classes of Citizenship, where Indigenous People had a RIGHT OF VETO that other groups or individuals  DO NOT HAVE.

The PROVISIONS IN THE UN DECLARATION in include PROVISIONS that are fundamentally incompatible with DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES, LEGISLATION and CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. Rosemary Banks reported that the UN Declaration (UNDRIP)_ was explained by its supporters as being an ‘ASPIRATIONATIONAL DOCUMENT’ intended to INSPIRE rather than to have LEGAL AFFECT.  She also added that “the history of the negotiations on the UN Declaration and the divided manner in which it has been adopted demonstrated that the text did not state propositions that were reflected by State practice, or which would be recognized as the general principles of law.

AS FOR THE TERMINOLOGY ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ this was established by a Tanzania Parliamentarian by the name of Parkipuny. Later on promoted by George Manuel President of the Canadian Indian Brotherhood and he was key to establishing the World Indigenous Council, he played a part in preparation of the UNDRIP (UN Declaration). At the gathering at the UN Assembly for the World Indigenous Council; 100 protestors walked out in protest as they had not consented to be classified, labeled as Indigenous People.

Early 1970’s George Manuel visited NZ met up with Maori Politicians and a small number of Maori entertainers where he talked seriously about this being called ‘Indigenous Peoples’, he then went onto Australia and spoke with Aboriginal Students. He communicated, met with world leaders and travelled extensively. Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not created the term ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Parkipuny did and George Manuel of the Canadian Indian Brotherhood spread this world wide.







Climate change: Mike Smith wins right to sue seven polluters including Fonterra, Z, Genesis Energy. Smith is an influential member of the Iwi National Leaders Forum, whom have back door entry to the Te Pati Maori Party in Parliament. Smith refers to the role of tikanga Maori and Smiths relationship to coastal waters. This appears to be the case of building up more renewable energies. Smith had already had his case thrown out of Court but the Supreme Court has now decided that he does has a case to be answered, so he gets his day in court once again

Smith states the government is failing its duties under the Treaty of Waitangi to protect Maori, whom he said are much more vulnerable to so called catastrophic climate change than any other peoples. Saying that agriculture sector contribute to approx. ½ of NZ’s Greenhouse emissions. Smith says the government was failing unless it reduced total greenhouse gases by half by 2020 and zero by 2050.

2017 Government  stock take on adapting to Climate Change identified Maori as a most vulnerable group because of their significant reliance on the environment as a cultural, social economic resource. With Climate Change Minister James Shaw saying that Maori are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change. Surely this case of Smiths now permitted by the Supreme Court will open the flood gates to claims by those whom have much self interested gain. Follow the money

Researching a book authored by David Seymour titled ‘Own Your Own Future’ A Liberal Vision For New Zealand in 2017..Page 22 ‘MMP allows small parties to have a large influence. The Maori Party have proven this by being prepared to threaten John Key with a walk out, which would leave the balance of power to Peter Dunne. They have managed to negotiate million after millions of taxpayer funding for various Maori centric projects and separatists legislation this being a gradual shift in the entire way in which government operates

Fast forward to page 162 on Environment in Seymour’s book. Green MPs are the biggest users of free parliamentary air travel, they spent more on air travel than NZ First MPs. This is a Party that flew three MPs to Paris to talk about Climate. Green Party only having one scientifically trained MP. The political right have two doctors, a geneticist, a zoologist and a neurological scientist and a few agricultural scientist

Page 163 The Free market economy make better environmental custodians. Seymour calls the free market economy as 4v P’s, Property Rights, Pricing, Prosperity and Private Initiatives. Saying the problem with the Green Party and their doing  environmentalism by posture of principle.

On page 170 ‘Chapter titled ‘In ACT We Tend to be Optimistic’ “ The reason the doomsters get the future wrong is that they under estimate or even ignore technological change. If you predict the future on the basis of current technology you will be wrong. Not just a little wrong but wildly wrong. There are a few  pessimists gone wrong over the years eg Malthus on population 1798, Ehrlich in 1968 (The Population Bomb) The Club Of Rome in 1972 (Limits to Growth) to Al Gore claiming in 2006 that we had only 10 years left to save the planet.  Al Gore has been very influential, as to Obama and now the WEF as made a fortune from his inconvenient truth.

“That in the last 30 years we have witnessed the greatest reduction in global poverty in the history of the planet. Tragically the Labour Party, Greens, NZ First still don’t get it that free-markets and globalization thing

Saying on page 171 “Forecasts of global fossil fuel use is based on current technologies will be wildly overstated. I think we should all be skeptical of the intense politicization of climate science debates. It is always suspicious when science issues seem to line up with political positions. The left/Right divide tends to correlate with alarmist sketic positions, and that’s weird whatever side you come from. Seymour stating he is a Luke  warmist as outlined by Matt Ridley when it comes to man made climate change. Is skeptical about the degree as to how dangerous man made climate change is, he just has a moderately informed opinion

What does Matt Ridley say:- Climate Change is doing more good than harm. The message he gives is “carry on warming” in an article in the Spectator as he challenged the widespread belief that climate change has a negative effect on the world.  Saying that current scientific consensus is largely ignored by mainstream media. Matt identifies economic benefits of climate change

Fewer winter deaths, a better chance of life benefits lower energy costs, cut heating bills. An increase in global plant growth High CO2 level is actually good news, has a positive effect on plant growth, on food supply and agricultural yields, in the Sahel region of Africa where levels of famine have declined. There’s no evidence that climate change has caused higher rates of death in extreme weather. This is a predicted conclusion by IPCC, An independent study by Indur Goklany that shows that the death rate from droughts, floods and storms has dropped 98% since the 1920’s. People have better protection and have got much richer.

The trouble is that the mainstream media, and even the IPCC, cherry-pick the bad news whilst ignoring the good. This leads to damaging anti-climate change policies: Negative economic and environmental impact. Matt contends that these policies have “driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities”.

Large input – negligible returns..Britain will spend around £1.8 trillion over the course of this century on climate policies, in the hope of lowering the air temperature by just 0.005°C.                    For Matt, the key question is: is it worth trying to impede a change in the future at the expense of causing a great deal of harm in the present.

Seymour says he is a luke warmist as outlined by Matt Ridley and here you have it. Hence its all down to NZrs contributing to being good global citizens and all this renewable energy will do nothing to change the climate.

Seymour’s says there is a strong case for us New Zealand’s to contribute to being good global citizens on page 172 of his book. We effectively have Zero impact on global warming outcomes. But of course, always follow the money… The World Bank directs grants to Indigenous Peoples, works closer with Indigenous Peoples, the financing, transitioning to carbon markets. Indigenous Peoples Rights to mitigate climate change, wind and solar farms. Climate Investment Te Pati Māori Climate Policy Plan for unique Indigenous Biodiversity

Te Pati Maori ‘whanau, hapu, iwi must remain at the forefront of climate action and solutions, they must be our own, Crown supports Iwi/Maori led clean energy projects, start up funding, partnerships, financing. Ensuring that Crown works with Iwi to establish climate change adaption. Iwi/Maori lead transition to Zero emissions economy, producing industries in the Maori economy, economic, social opportunity for Iwi businesses to be the cutting edge of green technology, as Maori economy continues to grow

Maori Party established a  $1 Billion scheme responsible for supporting Iwi/Maori owned community energy projects, solar energy and insulation, funding projects to create Maori jobs, bring down energy costs for whanau.

The Crown reviewing renewable energy, meaningful action in terms of involving Iwi/Maori. The Maori Party establishing a national Maori strategy for renewable energy, partnership agreement between Crown (Govt) and specific Iwi/Hapu that are keen to lead renewable energy with significant investment in large scale projects. With partnership finance. Maori Party ban coal mines phase out coal burning by 2030. Fund Iwi/Maori as to adaption of managed retreat policies. Economic social opportunities for Iwi/Maori businesses to be the cutting edge of renewable green technology, growing asset bases.

Back to Mike Smith, Influential member of the National Iwi Leader Forum that has a revolving door into Parliament through the Te Pati Maori Party. That has been in many talks with Christopher Luxon. Of course Christopher Luxon does not want Seymour’s Treaty Principle Bill to go to national referendum. NZ has no democracy. There is no democratic state of New Zealand.

Hence this is why I personally believe the supreme Court has now allowed Smith to take 7 large companies to Court as to Man Made Climate causing himself and idegous peoples harm. Just follow the dam money.


RESEARCHER: Carol Sakey,



I am probably walking on broken glass here with this shared post however never mind I am well used to it now, and I do have my big girl nickers on, so I’ll fire away and wait for the reasponses.



My Research has led me to seeking out information in the October 2019 published documentation of guidance for Policy Makers, Ministers when considering the Treaty Of Waitangi. The Treaty Of Waitangi is one of the major sources of NZ’s Constitution) Te Tiriti o Waitangi is most relevant in New Zealand’s Constitutional Arrangements, therefore the misinterpretations, reinterpretations affect all people of New Zealand.



The Māori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was re-translated by Sir Hugh Kawharu, which was also a Treaty Claimant. The original Māori Version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi has deliberately been corrupted by the Judicial, Legislation and the Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal has over-reaching powers to re=interpret the Treaty as they so wish and have done so, the same applies to politicians who have re-interpreted the Treaty for decision making as to policies due to the flawed corrupted guidelines in the PM- Cabinets documented guidance.



These guidelines are circulated to *All Chief Executives *All Senior Private Secretaries *All Private Secretaries *All Officials Involved In Policy Development. Below I refer to CO (19)5: Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi Guidance circulated by the Cabinet Office to All Ministers the Issue date was 22nd October 2019. Other major sources include the Constitution Act 1986, the prerogative powers of the Queen, the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993, the Senior Courts Act 2016, the NZ Bill Of Rights 1990 and other relevant New Zealand, English and UK Statutes, relevant decisions of the courts and the conventions of the constitution, Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and also Sir Hugh Kawharu’s translation of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Cabinet Manuel. P2)



Firstly I must add that the original version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create ‘Partnership’ nor ‘Principles’ this was enacted by Statute/legislation and interpretations through the Judicial under the Labour Government in the 1980’s. When the Waitangi Tribunal was established this caused further problems as they have over time been given over-reaching powers, authority to re-interpret the Te Tiriti o Waitangi as they so wish.



Without question or further adieu the Prime Minster’s Cabinet have adopted a biased guidance for ministers to follow by way of using several interpretation that are not clearly compliant or even remotely recognizable to the original Māori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi NZs Founding Document. (Circulated-22/10/2019). The Prime Minister-Cabinet Guidance includes the re-interpretation of what Sir Hugh Kawharu believed to be true that the Chiefs thought in 1840.




There are limits in polity on major decision making. References are made to special rights and interests of Maori and Maori autonomous Institutions having an authority, role to play within the wider constitutional and political system. Refers to two parties negotiating on decision making processes, this eludes to one of a partnership. Also the Treaty creates a basis for protecting and acknowledge Māori Rights and Interests within a shared citizenry. Surely we must now at this given time have one rule, one law for all. I am personally concerned about the ‘them and us’ situation which eludes to a 2 class citizenship in New Zealand.




What do I believe is justifiable as far as the ‘Principles’ of the original version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? My response if that no wording of ‘Principles’ were created in the Te Tiri o Waitangi, this was created by legislation. As for ‘Partnership’, there was no ‘Partnership’ created in the Tiriti o Waitangi. Let us go back to Sir Apirana Ngata, a scholar and a member of Parliament, he was a strong advocate of Maori interests within a unified nation of New Zealand. He described the following “The Chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the ‘Sovereign’ authority to make laws. (Art1) The Treaty transfers all ‘Chiefly’ authority to the Queen forever, and the embodiment of that ‘Authority’ is now the New Zealand Parliament. For that reason, all demands for absolute Maori authorities are nothing more than wishful thinking”.



In 1940 at the Centennial of the Treaty Of Waitangi he said “Let me acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Māori”. Hence from Sir Apirana Ngata’s own words its evidential that legal fiction have evolved deliberately so, because Apirana Ngata’s words clearly shows there is no ‘Partnership’ between the Crown (Govt)



The tail has certainly been wagging the dog, the Waitangi Tribunal should have no political standing, authority over legislation/ regulation or statutes of the law in New Zealand. I believe its highly questionable that the Judicial (Courts) have recognized ‘tikanga’ as part of a Māori Common Law. I am to understand that ‘Tikanga’ Maori means the right way of doing thing in Te Ao Maori. Whatever Māori see as just and correct in their Māori World view that ‘tikanga’. defined Tikanga Maori as including all values, standards, principles or norms that Māori subscribe to, to determine appropriate behaviour. Lawcom also state that ‘tikanga’ Māori maybe a source of enforceable rights and interests for Māori. also states that up to 1840 references to Maori Law are ‘tapu’ (sacred prohibition) – ‘rahui’ (a form of tapu restricting access to certain food sources) – ‘utu’ (repayment for anothers actions, whether hostile or friendly and also ‘muru’ (a form of utu, usually a ruitual seizure of personal property as redress, compensation for an offence).



‘Tikanga is expressly recognized in various ways in ACTS of Parliament, therefore this surely means we do have a two class citizenship in New Zealand. I am concerned about the Veto Rights that Iwi/Maori have over others, and where the Waitangi Tribunal sits within this political scope? Here I reference the Waitangi Tribunal in ‘Te Puni Koriki Booklet’ Titled ‘The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Expressed By The Courts and Waitangi Tribunal’



Interesting that ‘Te Puni Kokiri is the governments principal policy advisor on Maori development, Te Puni Koriki is a government department. Described by the government themselves as ‘The Crown-Maori Economic Growth Partnership’ also noted on the Government Website ‘Te Puni Koriki’s Partnership between the Crown (Govt) and Maori is a key principle in the Treaty.


Again I confirm that the original Maori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi never created a Partnership between the Crown- the Govt and Maori.

Sir Hugh Kawharu’s re-interpretations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi are very biased in favour of the over-reaching Waitangi Tribunals authority his re-interpretated beliefs means that every claimant could seek redress (compensation) just for not being able to carry out their chieftainship. Sir Hugh Kauwharu re-interpreted the Treaty in such a way that it could give Iwi/Maori Sovereign Rights, Veto Rights over other, a two class citizenship, veto over the legislature of Parliament.


David Seymour, Winston Peters I urge you to seek open public debate on this extremely important issue that affects all New Zealand Citizens. I pray that Christopher Luxon will walk with you both on broken glass, after a while you get use to it.


The original Maori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is well overdue for open discussion and debate. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is New Zealand’s Founding Document that’s very important to NZ’s Constitutional Arrangement.