Waatea News Column: ANOTHER attack on Treaty – Maori wards and erasing legislation


For a Government that keeps claiming that it is not Anti-Māori, they seem to have a lot of anti-Māori policies.
Week after week after week there is a never-ending parade of anti-Māori policy this Government throw out as raw meat to their angry reactionary voting block.

This week we see this Government attempt to undermine local councils by forcing referendums on the Māori Wards and we are seeing an attempt to remove the Treaty from at least 40 acts with Treaty principles clauses!

This amounts to an erasure of Māori political aspirations at the local level and total elimination of the Treaty from law.

You can see why Māori are their Pakeha allies in biculturalism are so angry.

Not only were Māori the political punching bag to get the reactionary Right elected, but they now have to endure the indignity of having the little they have gained ripped away from them in the name of ‘democracy’.

- Sponsor Promotion -

Whose democracy?

Councils that were progressive and advanced enough to create Māori Wards are about to have their choice ripped away from them by forcing them to hold referendum to justify Māori inclusion.

Their democracy clearly doesn’t matter.

Our law has been written together and has attempted to find a path of justice, simply removing the Treaty from all law passed doesn’t serve our democracy it mutilates it!

The wider Left need to acknowledge that the fringe elements of this new Government have no intention of pausing in their culture war against Māori and the only option left is protest.

The Left need to work together so that Māori, workers, renters and the environment that are being abused by this new Government have a focused response.

There is more common ground between us than separates us and the very future of our country is being challenged and re-written by a Government that has no mandate to do so.


First published on Waatea News.


    • Can you read and understand maori??? “tino rangatiratanga” is promised in Article 2 of the maori version the correct version which gives Maori undisturbed rights over their lands and resources.

      • Indeed, it does! How does that translate to race based segregation in the electoral system? Clearly it doesn’t. The second article just gave the chiefs ownership as we know it now (a concept alien to Maori at that time)

        By the way, did you know that ‘rangatiratanga’ was a ‘portmanteau’ word invented by the missionaries translating Hobson’s original version to convey meaning that until then didn’t exist in any version of Te Reo?

        • Andrew, your white supremacist logic doesn’t make sense and the narrative you’ve decided to employ is typical pakeha bigotry! Maori don’t need to get technical in the meaning of what sovereignty meant even the colonial visitors in 1810 commented that Maori were against ‘pakeha’ interfering into their country’s affairs well documented in our historic archives something that you clearly haven’t researched. Maori understood the pakeha world through the bible that was translated from pakeha in to Maori in 1830. I say too pakeha bigots like you that your narrative is ova like your exceptionalism start getting use too!!

        • How does that translate to race based segregation in the electoral system? It gives Maori undisturbed rights over their lands and resources – allows Maori to choose amongst those running in Maori seats and provides democratic process within the Treaty obligations. Not overly complex for most.

          You reference to Hobson suggests your affinity to Hobsons Choice – is this correct?

        • It was invented by Henry Williams to convey the concept of sovereignty according too Paul Moon in his book The Newest Country in the World

        • That is nonsense. Rangatiratanga is bona fide classical Maori term. In written Maori it can be traced back to the 1814 publication of Te Rongopai ki te Ritenga a Ruka. Indisputably (for anyone is honest, intelligent and knowledgeable) it means sovereign authority.

    • nothing in there about white people owning everything either .Nothing in the treaty saying that maori should hand over all their land to white settlers either or saying the white people should be able to murder as many Maori as possable and confiscate millions of acres of land

        • Bob the first or Big Thick Fuck for short would not know either version of the treaty such his very poor history of New Zealand.
          And correct Derek, BTF is racist.

  1. The treaty principles is a watered down version so as not to give full meaning to the correct interpretation which is the Maori version. The treaty principles favor pakeha more than it gives lip service to Maori aspirations. Maori today suffer from european exceptionalism brought to our shores largely after the signing of this international document. If pakeha think that Maori are getting special privileges because of the treaty principles than they’re historically illiterate and need to learn our country’s history warts and all.

  2. I support revitalisation of maori language, culture and perspectives in NZ, if this gives greater pride to maori and helps uplift them from various negative stats.
    Today Maori number $1m and growing, and significant portion are successful people with good jobs, business and education.

    Hence, do not see why there is a need for Maori wards and seats etc, when large number of maori are in parliament already without the need of special seats.

      • There are no pakeha wards as far as I know but there are not Maori standing or being elected .This is a pity but it is in their own hands to mobilize like they did at the national elections

        • Well if they’re not Maori wards then what are they Trevor?
          And what are you and your government afraid of Trevor?

          Read this again and let it sink in…

          “This week we see this Government attempt to undermine local councils by forcing referendums on the Māori Wards and we are seeing an attempt to remove the Treaty from at least 40 acts with Treaty principles clauses!

          This amounts to an erasure of Māori political aspirations at the local level and total elimination of the Treaty from law.”

          • Good heavens NSC stick to foul language and abuse it’s all you know,beyond that you reveal yourself for the uneducated fool you really are.

            • Gosh Bob the troll is triggered by facts and evidenced based research, hardly surprising you went for the personal attack. There’s no such thing as heaven, good or bad, you illiterate twat, your low level of education is on full display, however most on this site know you to be the immature fool you are.

        • we do here in waitomo .there maori wards have been band and when Maori are voted onto council they are sidelined asap .At the moment a red neck pommy cunt gets more say than any maori ever had

  3. To be fair the whole ward system in local government needs to go. Wards are actually undemocratic.
    In the last New Plymouth District Council election I got to vote for 5 General councilors and 6 New Plymouth ward councilors. My wife, who is on the Maori electoral role was forced to vote in the maori ward and so could only vote for 5 general and 1 maori councilor. My brother in the southern ward could likewise only vote for 1 southern councilor and 5 general. Why should I get a voice in choosing twice ad many councilors as them

    • How is it undemocratic? Giving Maori a representation to vote at a local level actually enhances our democracy as most maori don’t vote locally let alone nationwide. Sure there are Maori councillors like there are Maori MPs like Seymour but they represent pakeha interest not maori. A specific Maori ward represent Maori interest for example in Hastings Te Mata peak tracks fiasco where the local hastings council gave permission for Craggy Range Winery to lay down a walking track on Maoriland without consulting the landowners. Other issues of importance to maori are situated all ova this country so its only important to have a maori representative for these matters.


  4. There will be a Māori Parliament formed sooner rather than later–not a neo beehive building–but an ongoing political co-operation and moving assembly around the country among Māori Iwi, Hapu, Whanau, leaders forums and business interests.

    Trying to disappear all things Māori is a fundamental mistake by these racist fleas and it will be coming right back at them.

  5. Really Andrew did you read the part that promised us full undisturbed possession of our lands etc etc etc.
    And to add to Peters comment perpetual leases weren’t in the TOW does that equate to theft by dubious means.

  6. Really Andrew did you read the part that promised us full undisturbed possession of our lands etc etc etc.
    And to add to Peters comment perpetual leases weren’t in the TOW does that equate to theft by dubious means.

  7. Martyn – In areas with a high Maori Population – Maori wards make a lot sense….areas with a low Maori Population, not so much…despite Article 2 of the Treaty providing this. Article 1, and 3 of the Treaty somewhat counters Article 2.

    • Nathan, the Maori version is the correct version and because the TOW is an international document than international laws apply like contra-preferential, Contracts can be complex documents created after long periods of protracted negotiations. Each party in the contract is ostensibly looking out for its own best interests and will want the contract language to be to each party’s favor. This can create scenarios in which the contract language is ambiguous or unclear, leading one party to interpret the contract differently from the other party.

      The phrase contra proferentem in Latin translates to “against the offeror,” which can be further interpreted to “guilt of the drafter.” Overall, the contra proferentem rule is known for placing fault on the party who created an ambiguous clause or requested that it be included. It is designed as a caveat as well as a penalty or legal punishment for introducing and including an intentionally vague contract clause into a contract.

      Courts follow a multi-step process in determining whether the contra proferentem rule should be applied in contract disputes.

      Courts first determine if the contract term or clause in question is ambiguous and could potentially lead to confusion. If it is, the court’s next step is to determine whether the ambiguity was intentional, crafted by the party who drafted the contract to serve their own interests. If there’s clear evidence showing that the drafting party did not intend to create ambiguity, the contract is interpreted based on what the evidence indicates.

      As historian and academics noted that the ambiguities in the Maori & English version is apparent and evidence recorded by British officials indicate that major steps were taken to annex this country from Maori and the missionaries played a vital role in this crime as they were the mouthpiece of the british monarchy to subjugate Maori. Learn our country history before commenting on matters of constitutional importance.


      • stephen – All correct…except, prior, and current Governments, including Labour, have done their very best to water down those legal arguments…

      • Treaties are not contracts and application of the contra proferentem rule to the TOW is unusual and clumsy. The usual and correct treaty principle is pacta sunt servanda where good faith from each party is required to make the treaty work. The latter principle doesn’t rely on the historically inaccurate pretense that the Māori version is the real version. If Professor Paul Moon is correct that the British only intended sovereignty to apply to the British immigrants, the obsession of some academics with which version is superior is irrelevant. Moon as a historian is far more convincing than lawyer academics.

        • Anus, I wouldn’t take Paul Moon seriously concerning legality as he a historian that made frivolous comments that ‘Niu Zilind’ hadn’t any real value for the British when the evidence say otherwise, However I did google the bit about “pacta sunt servanda” which actually gives more weight to the Maori version than “contra proferentem” Even Moon agreed that Maori self-determination isn’t questionable so the reality is Maori are a sovereign people that didn’t sign away their sovereignty thanks for the confirmation.


          • Hi Tip, Apirana Ngata thought Māori did surrender such sovereignty as they might have had. I suspect your ideological constraints stop you being clear sighted.

            • Anus, Ngata was a compromised MP in a system dominated by Pakeha values and beliefs he even promised and encourage Maori to fight in the world wars and they’ll be treated favorably in their own country but he lied like a lot of other things he advocated on behalf of european exceptionalism like the “tohunga suppression ACT” mainly targeted at the prophet “Rua Heptima Kenana” of Tuhoe descent remembering his uncle 15 years earlier “Ropata Wahawaha” of Ngati Porou lead a Battalion through tuhoe region enacting the “Scorched earth policies”. Luckily we have hindsight in our favor to scrutinize the policies and rhetoric this person and others like his nephew Apirana Ngata advocated on behalf of europeans wellbeing at the detriment of his own people.

              • What is your highest level of education? I don’t mean something you are enrolled in. What have you passed? You quote websites and address me as Anus. I suspect you are a troll bot.

                • Anus, don’t change the subject! The issue is that the “Treaty of Waitangi” is not a contract its a “partnership” that why I thank you for reminding me that “Contra Proferentem” wasn’t the correct term for international law but “pacta sunt servanda” or Co-governance between the two sovereign treaty signatures.

  8. Nathan, we have a ratshit CoC government calling for one law for all, but our Māori land up the east coast and on the west coast is locked into perpetual leases. And in the meantime, mickey mouse seemore is currently advocating for private landowners rights.

  9. covid is pa – Yes, and yes…sadly, the issue of perpetual leases of Maori Land makes its very difficult to use the lands for the benefit of the various tribes…just as the Governments of old wished for.

  10. We should only have All New Zealand wards. In politics, in healthcare, in prisons, in everything. This separation thing is bullshit

  11. As someone who wants reform of our mob rule democracy into a more representative democracy for “every” individual, I can only see Maori delivering this. Kia Kaha, Kia Mana

  12. Even while Maori are seeking to retain representation in the national legislature and local councils, the whole system is facing a crisis of public confidence. Maori wards were a step in the right direction, but too little and too late. The entire system of governance in this country needs radical reform at both national and local levels so as to take power away from the politicians and deliver it back to the people. Does the system have the capacity to radically reform itself? Probably not. So it becomes incumbent upon the people to establish genuinely democratic institutions as alternatives to the present system, and Maori are well placed to take the lead in that. If the “abolition of Maori wards” gives impetus to this process, then it will have long term beneficial consequences for all.

    • Serious answer.
      No, there are so many more right wing commenters on the TDB with less tertiary qualifications?
      You, Bob the troll, are evidence of this.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here