An article was posted on September 8^th 2012 authored by Professor Elizabeth Rata of the School of Critical Studies in Education at Auckland University. She is known for her work and research in the area of ‘effects of ethnic politics on educational change’. She stated that “Iwi have been extremely successful in pursuing their demands for public resources and political power. The intriguing question being – is how to explain such total success given that many New Zealanders, both Maori and Non-Maori are increasingly concerned by the run away juggernaut of Iwi ambitions. Elizabeth Rata described Iwi success is based on unquestioned belief that there is direct continuity between the traditional tribe and contemporary Iwi. Thus using this to justify Iwi claims for the inheritance of resources and various levels of governance, she said that the ‘ Treaty is promoted as a document of ‘Inheritance’. But Iwi Corporations are they the same entities as the tribes of the past, and therefore entitled to inherit the past’

Should this be challenged, and why is it not being challenged.?  It is that not ‘walking on broken glass’ fear of the repercussions, that those that have the power and voice to speak out, do not do so because they may have the words ‘racist, white supremacists, far right being rammed down their throat. How cowardly is that. Its time for public debates without government intrusion as to what majority of New Zealanders want for their country. Do you really believe that Iwi have the right to claim our public resources, to manage private lands that are freehold owned by NZ Citizens?

As Elizabeth Rata states- “ALL traditional societies are based on kinship social relations and on ones birth status in the kin group. You are born into the group, defining your identity and how you lived your life. Modern societies are based on the ‘social contract’. Social groups, even those with long traditions like religions, as associations of individuals” Members are free to join, leave, decide how strongly they wish to identify with the group”. A shift from status to contract is at the heart of the great tradition-modern divide. This shift has changed all social groups fundamentally, and this includes Iwi in NZ today.(The changed relationship between individual and society)

Traditional groupings are non-divisible, present day Iwi like all modern groups are associations of individuals. This means that contemporary Iwi have the same rights and responsibilities as other groups in society, neither more nor less. Traditional societies do not have separation between economic and political spheres. Modern democratic societies like NZ do, this is to ensure that ALL individuals according to their status as citizens and regardless of their unequal economic position have an equal say in politics.

Contemporary Iwi are ‘private Economic Corporations’ claiming public-political status. An economic corporation claiming political rights eats at the heart of the political-economical separation. This Iwi political- economic separation in undemocratic. Democracy does not exist in New Zealand. I myself,  believe this Iwi Corporation should not inherit from what is becoming a tribal feudalism fuelled by the Iwi Elite and those political cronies in the cesspit of Wellington. As Elizabeth Rata pointed out “All of us living today are descended from traditional people, we all retain and maintain a number of values, beliefs, practices that come from the past.

This she explains is a ‘Superficial Continuity’ that the fundamental difference is a ‘Structural’ one. Modern society is based on the individual as the bearer of political rights and on the separation of the political sphere from the economic sphere. The skill of the Iwi case lies in the use of two extremely successful strategies. For example ‘the creation of a new interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi as NZ’s founding document, and as a partnership between the Govt and Iwi. Also the appeal to Common Law. The re-interpretation of  the Treaty as a ‘partnership’ between two political entities dates back to the Court Of Appeal decision in the late 1980’s, where it was stated that the Treaty established a relationship ‘akin to a partnership’. That many people do not question and believe it is true, either out of self interests or have been indoctrinated, brainwashed to believe so. There is ‘No Partnership’ mentioned, documented in the Treaty document’ What is being published by mainstream media and govt is a legal fiction. ‘THEY ARE LYING”

Elizabeth Rata refers to David Round’s comment about Treaty partnership “If there were to be a partnership of Maori and the Crown, then by definition Maori could not be subjects of the Crown. One cannot be a partner and a subject at the same time” (David Round 2011). The idea that the Treaty is NZs founding document is premature. A nations founding document is of great symbolic importance to NZ. It requires widespread ongoing  discussion possibly over several generations. Elizabeth Rata states “whether a single document is selected for this symbolic honour or whether a number of historical documents and events are regarded as significant and given special status is in itself an historic task. Its one that is made difficult by the removal of specific history topics from the national curriculum. That in order to decide what is historically significant one must know NZs history and what choices are possible.

Ardern announced NZ history will be taught in schools and kura by 2022 as part of the schools curriculum 12^th September 2019 Beehive announcement by Ardern and Hipkins. The history curriculum to include The Arrival Of Maori to NZ. First encounters, early colonial history of NZ, Treaty Of Waitangi and history, Colonisation of NZ, immigration to NZ, including the NZ Wars. Evolving national identity of NZ in the late 19^th and early 20^th Century. NZ’s role in the Pacific, Aotearoa NZ in the late 20^th century and evolution of national identity with cultural plurity.Hipkins said “The Ministry will call on historical and curriculum experts, Iwi and Mana Whenua, pacific communities, students, whanau and other strong interest groups.

This includes schools working in partnership with their local iwi communities and mana whenua. The changes will cover the whole breadth of the national curriculum. Tikanga a Iwi to be compulsory from year 1 – 10. From Year 11 schools can choose which subjects their students are required to take. RNZ reported 24 May 2021 ‘Moriori fear their history will be left out of the new school curriculum. The Hokotehi Moriori Trust said the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Histories Curriculum mentioned Moriori only once. The Trusts cultural and science projects coordinator Susan Thorpe said it was a serious omission especially as the Crown had acknowledged the school system had spread misinformation that Moriori are  still battling. She said “Failure to tell history hurts more that its telling” Maui Solomon blamed Pakeha historians for badly blighting Moiriori history. However thats not what the NZ Government National archives have published.

The Moriori philosophy of non-violence was especially important and deserved wider recognition, Morris said. Grant Morris of Victoria University. Moriori – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand From NZ Govt Archives I researched how there was a horrific slaughtering, enslavement of Moriori by two Maori warring tribes that visited to Chatham Islands. Yet some managed to survive. (The horrific story of this horrible tragic event is told within the NZ Govt archives). The Government has adopted a strategy that mana whenua, iwi tell the story of the history of NZ.as they see it. There has been no wider public debate about what should be taught to children in schools. The Government have become the custodians of our children’s lives.

There has to my knowledge been no public debate without government / Iwi Elite interruption as to the founding document. Iwi elite and self interested parties use the Treaty as a document of Inheritance, its not about the symbolic value to the whole nation of NZ. The Treaty is a document of inheritance for the government/ Iwi Elite own strategic reasons. As Elizabeth Rata states ‘ The Treaty symbolises the idea of continuity between the tradition world and the modern world. The new interpretation of the Treaty is also supported by the Iwi focus on Article 2. About ‘Resource Possession’, driving the meaning of the 1^st and 3^rd Articles of the Treaty. (With the effect of the isolated method of interpretation, is to lose the integrated meaning of the articles.) The concepts of ‘sovereignty’ in Article 1, of resource possession in Article 1. And of Resource possession in Article 2, and ‘Citizenship’ in Article 3, they tend to be in totality. Hence meaning that one Article being dependent upon the meaning of the others. Enabling Article two to achieve an undeserved dominance.

Another strategy for Iwi success, has proved very valuable to them and highly effective is the ‘use of legal language and procedures’ This has served to embed the idea that Iwi ambitions are true and just. Makes good use of New Zealanders right and proper respect for law. Elizabeth Rata states “This has a less healthy side, it can produce an uncritical acceptance of ideas that use the weight of legalese. Some words gaining an unearned respect, their use can stop people identifying and criticizing the political interests that are promoted in legal arguments, by using these words ‘Common Law’. Customary Law and English Common Law these are often used by Iwi for this reason. It pulls the wool over our eyes. Therefore Common Law of ‘Do No Harm’ can be used, abused to do harm. Iwi are in a long tradition of elites, they use their legal antiquity strategy for their own political ends. Elizabeth Rata refers to 18^th Century Edmond Burke who referred to Iwi ‘ the powerful prepossession towards antiquity, in the minds of lawyers and legislators and all the people whom they wish to influence” (Burke, cited in Hampsher-Monk 1992 Page 267)

This argument accepts Common Law as a given but disputes to whom it applies. F W Maitland a 19^th Century legal historian stated that “the foundational group or tribe, or clan is not, has never been past of the English Constitution, even in Anglo Saxon times. He found that ‘individualism, not foundational grouping was the distinguishing characteristic of Anglo Saxon legal, economic and political relations. Thus meaning that Common Law did not apply to foundational groups. He said not all civilizations had started in the world where individuals were embedded in the community, where contract was entirely subordinate to status, where hierarchy and ;patriarchy were universal.(Macfarlande 2002 P83)

Elizabeth Rata published that ‘Individuals and associations of individuals were recognised in various forms of contract at the beginning of the development of English Common Law. It is the individual, in these various forms of contractual trusts and associations, not the indivisible kinship group which is the basis of Common Law. ‘Iwi want the 1970’s interpretation of the Treaty Of Waitangi to be included in a new NZ Constitution. The interpretation to be promoted as true, a legal fiction that uses constant references to laws, government  legislations. This is a political strategy built on a legal fiction. Legal does not mean lawful. This is unlawful. This is how Govt and Iwi Elite wants history to be remembered and flouted by one big lie. That serves the interests of those who promote the lies..

Within the political cesspit of Wellington and publicly outside that political toilet bowl the criticism for the lies that New Zealanders have been told, and have had to have rammed down their throats, taught to our children in schools is never criticised publicly by these political  toilet sitters. They must be criticized, we must urge open public debate. Democracy is being able to participate in open public debate without being harassed, character assassinated by political entities Iwi elite as busy cloaking themselves in legal justification.

As Elizabeth Rata states in her article of 2012 “whatever the law might say about the meaning of the Treaty, the final decision about its place in our society is a political one. The Treaty’s usefulness to NZ must therefore be decided in the political sphere, not in the courts and by lawyers but  by us, the people of NZ. Its usefulness to New Zealand must therefore be decided in the political sphere, not in courts by judges and lawyers, but by us, the people. She refers to  Corporations, businesses, Iwi Corporations, to give political power to these to subvert the basic conditions of democracy, where economic is put under control of political, they should be under separate spheres.

In 2012 Elizabeth Rata said “The rapidly growing practice by successive governments of giving public resources to private corporations is bizarre and bewildering. In New Zealand it has happened and is a testament to the political skill of Iwi and to the failure of New Zealanders to say ‘NO’. We need to recognise that if we believe and act as if  traditional kinship as the same entity as a modern social group it subverts the basic condition of democracy. The principle of contractual social relations and the political status of the individual as is a New Zealand citizen, regardless of that persons racial origin and cultural affiliation.

Iwi have been extremely successful in pursuing their demands for public resources and political power. The intriguing question being – is how to explain such total success given that many New Zealanders, both Maori and Non-Maori are increasingly concerned by the run away juggernaut of Iwi ambitions. Elizabeth Rata described Iwi success is based on unquestioned belief that there is direct continuity between the traditional tribe and contemporary Iwi. Thus using this to justify Iwi claims for the inheritance of resources and various levels of governance. The Treaty is promoted as a document of ‘Inheritance’. But Iwi Corporations are they the same entities as the tribes of the past, and therefore entitled to inherit the past?

As Elizabeth Rata states- “ALL traditional societies are based on kinship social relations and on ones birth status in the kin group. You are born into the group, defining your identity and how you lived your life. Modern societies are based on the ‘social contract’. Social groups, even those with long traditions like religions, as associations of individuals” Members are free to join, leave, decide how strongly they wish to identify with the group. A shift from status to contract is at the heart of the great tradition-modern divide. This shift has changed all social groups fundamentally, and this includes Iwi in NZ today.(The changed relationship between individual and society). Traditional groupings are non-divisible, present day Iwi like all modern groups are associations of individuals. This means that contemporary Iwi have the same rights and responsibilities as other groups in society, neither more nor less.

Traditional societies do not have separation between economic and political spheres. Modern democratic societies like NZ do, this is to ensure that ALL individuals according to their status as citizens and regardless of their unequal economic position have an equal say in politics. Contemporary Iwi are ‘private Economic Corporations’ claiming public-political status. An economic corporation claiming political rights eats at the heart of the political-economical separation. This Iwi political- economic separation in undemocratic. Democracy does not exist in New Zealand. As Elizabeth Rata pointed out “All of us living today are descended from traditional people, we all retain and maintain a number of values, beliefs, practices that come from the past. This she explains is a ‘Superficial Continuity’ that the fundamental difference is a ‘Structural’ one. Modern society is based on the individual as the bearer of political rights and on the separation of the political sphere from the economic sphere. The skill of the iwi case lies in the use of two extremely successful strategies. 1)Is the creation of a new interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi as NZ’s founding document, and as a partnership between the Govt and Iwi and  (2) The appeal to Common Law.

The re-interpretation of  the Treaty as a ‘partnership’ between two political entities dates back to the Colurt Of Appeal decision in the late 1980’s, where it was stated that the Treaty established a relationship ‘akin to a partnership’. That many people do not question and believe it is true, either out of self interests or have been indoctrinated, brainwashed to believe so. There is ‘No Partnership’ mentioned, documented in the Treaty document’ What is being published by mainstream media and govt is a legal fiction. ‘THEY ARE LYING”

Elizabeth Rata refers to David Round’s comment about Treaty partnership “If there were to be a partnership of Maori and the Crown, then by definition Maori could not be subjects of the Crown. One cannot be a partner and a subject at the same time” (David Round 2011). The idea that the Treaty is NZs founding document is premature. A nations founding document is of great symbolic importance to NZ. It requires widespread ongoing  discussion possibly over several generations. Elizabeth Rata states “whether a single document is selected for this symbolic honour or whether a number of historical documents and events are regarded as significant and given special status is in itself an historic task. Its one that is made difficult by the removal of specific history topics from the national curriculum. That in order to decide what is historically significant one must know NZs history and what choices are possible.

Ardern announced NZ history will be taught in schools and kura by 2022 as part of the schools curriculum 12^th September 2019 Beehive announcement by Ardern and Hipkins. The history curriculum to include The Arrival Of Maori to NZ. First encounters, early colonial history of NZ, Treaty Of Waitangi and history, Colonisation of NZ, immigration to NZ, including the NZ Wars. Evolving national identity of NZ in the late 19^th and early 20^th Century. NZ’s role in the Pacific, Aotearoa NZ in the late 20^th century and evolution of national identity with cultural plurity. Hipkins said “The Ministry will call on historical and curriculum experts, Iwi and Mana Whenua, pacific communities, students, whanau and other strong interest groups. This includes schools working in partnership with their local iwi communities and mana whenua. The changes will cover the whole breadth of the national curriculum. Tikanga a Iwi to be compulsory from year 1 – 10. From Year 11 schools can choose which subjects their students are required to take.

RNZ reported 24 May 2021 ‘Moriori fear their history will be left out of the new school curriculum. The Hokotehi Moriori Trust said the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Histories Curriculum mentioned Moriori only once. The Trusts cultural and science projects coordinator Susan Thorpe said it was a serious omission especially as the Crown had acknowledged the school system had spread misinformation that Moriori are  still battling. She said “Failure to tell history hurts more that its telling” Maui Solomon blamed Pakeha historians for badly blighting Moiriori history. The Moriori philosophy of non-violence was especially important and deserved wider recognition, Morris said. Grant Morris of Victoria University. Moriori – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand From NZ Govt Archives I researched how there was a horrific slaughtering, enslavement of Moriori by two Maori warring tribes that visited to Chatham Islands. Yet some managed to survive. (The horrific story of this horrible tragic event is told within the NZ Govt archives)

The Government has adopted a strategy that mana whenua, iwi tell the story of the history of NZ.as they see it. There has been no wider public debate about what should be taught to children in schools. The Government have become the custodians of our children’s lives. There has to my knowledge been no public debate without government / Iwi Elite interruption as to the founding document. Iwi elite and self interested parties use the Treaty as a document of Inheritance, its not about the symbolic value to the whole nation of NZ.

The Treaty is a document of inheritance for the government/ Iwi Elite own strategic reasons. As Elizabeth Rata states ‘ The Treaty symbolises the idea of continuity between the tradition world and the modern world. The new interpretation of the Treaty is also supported by the Iwi focus on Article 2. About ‘Resource Possession’, driving the meaning of the 1^st and 3^rd Articles of the Treaty. (With the effect of the isolated method of interpretation, is to lose the integrated meaning of the articles.) The concepts of ‘sovereignty’ in Article 1, of resource possession in Article 1. , and of Resource possession in Article 2, and ‘Citizenship’ in Article 3, they tend to be in totality. Hence meaning that one Article being dependent upon the meaning of the others. Enabling Article two to achieve an undeserved dominance.

Another strategy for Iwi success, has proved very valuable to them and highly effective is the ‘use of legal language and procedures’ This has served to embed the idea that Iwi ambitions are true and just. Makes good use of New Zealanders right and proper respect for law. Elizabeth Rata states “This has a less healthy side, it can produce an uncritical acceptance of ideas that use the weight of legalese. Some words gaining an unearned respect, their use can stop people identifying and criticizing the political interests that are promoted in legal arguments, by using these words ‘Common Law’. Customary Law and English Common Law these are often used by Iwi for this reason. It pulls the wool over our eyes. Therefore Common Law of ‘Do No Harm’ can be used, abused to do harm. Iwi are in a long tradition of elites, they use their legal antiquity strategy for their own political ends. Elizabeth Rata refers to 18^th Century Edmond Burke who referred to Iwi ‘ the powerful prepossession towards antiquity, in the minds of lawyers and legislators and all the people whom they wish to influence” (Burke, cited in Hampsher-Monk 1992 Page 267)

This argument accepts Common Law as a given but disputes to whom it applies. F W Maitland a 19^th Century legal historian stated that “the foundational group or tribe, or clan is not, has never been past of the English Constitution, even in Anglo Saxon times. He found that ‘individualism, not foundational grouping was the distinguishing characteristic of Anglo Saxon legal, economic and political relations. Thus meaning that Common Law did not apply to foundational groups. He said not all civilizations had started in the world where individuals were embedded in the community, where contract was entirely subordinate to status, where hierarchy and ;patriarchy were universal.(Macfarlande 2002 P83). Elizabeth Rata published that ‘Individuals and associations of individuals were recognised in various forms of contract at the beginning of the development of English Common Law. It is the individual, in these various forms of contractual trusts and associations, not the indivisible kinship group which is the basis of Common Law.

‘Iwi want the 1970’s interpretation of the Treaty Of Waitangi to be included in a new NZ Constitution. The interpretation to be promoted as true, a legal fiction that uses constant references to laws, government  legislations. This is a political strategy built on a legal fiction. Legal does not mean lawful. This is unlawful. This is how Govt and Iwi Elite wants history to be remembered and flouted by one big lie. That serves the interests of those who promote the lies.. Within the political cesspit of Wellington and publicly outside that political toilet bowl the criticism for the lies that New Zealanders have been told, and have had to have rammed down their throats, taught to our children in schools is never criticised publicly by these political  toilet sitters. They must be criticized, we must urge open public debate. Democracy is being able to participate in open public debate without being harassed, character assassinated by political entities Iwi elite as busy cloaking themselves in legal justification. Nanaia Mahuta is running a three day workshop on this 21st Nov 2022-23rd Nov 2022 Auckland University, guest speakers from overseas and local Iwi. The plan is to entrench New Zealand society, economy with the UN Declaration for Indigenous Peoples. (UNDRIP)

As Elizabeth Rata states in her article of 2012 “whatever the law might say about the meaning of the Treaty, the final decision about its place in our society is a political one. The Treaty’s usefulness to NZ must therefore be decided in the political sphere, not in the courts and by lawyers but  by us, the people of NZ. Its usefulness to New Zealand must therefore be decided in the political sphere, not in courts by judges and lawyers, but by us, the people. Referring to Corporations, businesses, Iwi Corporations, to give political power to these to subvert the basic conditions of democracy, where economic is put under control of political, they should be under separate spheres. In 2012 Elizabeth Rata said “The rapidly growing practice by successive governments of giving public resources to private corporations is bizarre and bewildering. In New Zealand it has happened and is a testament to the political skill of Iwi and to the failure of New Zealanders to say ‘NO’

We need to recognise that if we believe and act as if  traditional kinship as the same entity as a modern social group it subverts the basic condition of democracy. The principle of contractual social relations and the political status of the individual as is a New Zealand citizen, regardless of that persons racial origin and cultural affiliation.

I believe Iwi Corporations, self interested Iwi activists should not inherit from what is becoming a tribal feudalism fuelled by the Iwi Elite and those political cronies in the cesspit of WellingtonI believe this Iwi Corporation should not inherit from what is becoming a tribal feudalism fuelled by the Iwi Elite and those political cronies in the cesspit of Wellington. Should this be challenged, and why is it not being challenged. It is that not ‘walking on broken glass’ fear of the repercussions, that those that have the power and voice to speak out, do not do so because they may have the words ‘racist, white supremacists, far right being rammed down their throat. How cowardly is that. Its time for public debates without government intrusion as to what majority of New Zealanders want for their country. Do you really believe that Iwi have the right to claim our public resources, to manage private lands that are freehold owned by NZ Citizens?

Iwi have been exceptionally effective in obtaining considerable public resources and political recognition, and enough is never enough and now its Nanaia Mahuta and her ‘The Iwi-Crown Constitution and beyond’ for Indigenous peoples interests’. The entrenchment of the UNDRIP into the whole of NZ Society. Ardern has named Iwi as the leaders of NZ. We must use positive public criticism, we must openly scrutinize without feeling we are walking on broken glass. We must rise up, and speak up publicly. Find that moral courage to do so. We must put a stop to the robbing of public resources and the increasing institutionalised apartheid- identity politics of NZ.

We must use positive public criticism, we must openly scrutinize without feeling we are walking on broken glass. We must rise up, and speak up publicly. Find that moral courage to do so. We must put a stop to the robbing of public resources and the increasing institutionalised apartheid- identity politics of NZ. We must stand in Unity. As All One People. He Iwi Tahi Tatou. I raise my voice to encourage Moral Courage intertwined with  Christian Belief’s, Values and Morals.

nzcpr.com/an-argument-against-iwi-claims-to-constitutional-recognition-and-public-resources/