This confirmation came in an article by him that was published today in The Guardian, titled “In New Zealand, Maori co-governance is already underway – referendum or not”. (1)
The term “co-governance” is a weasel word, ambiguous and misleading and probably intended to be so. A Maori supremacist quite likely sees no “co” when “co-governance” is mentioned.
A coup is usually a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. In this instance, it is the government that is illegally seizing power from the citizens of New Zealand and reorganising power and control into race-based structures.
Godfery, who graduated in law from Victoria University of Wellington in 2015, is the Maori Research Partnerships Manager at the University of Otago, has worked at Parliament, was a trade unionist, and is a columnist at Metro.
It’s a pity that no one takes Godfery to task. It’s even more of a pity that his ramblings are circulated around the world as in the current Guardian piece. His writings out him as a Maori supremacy activist.
Godfery’s piece looks like an effort to support Maori Development Minister Willie Jackson in his time of need. Jackson has to manage the He Puapua plan, revealed one year ago, and appears to lack the brain power to mount an effective defence of the proposal.
This came to light when ACT Party leader David Seymour challenged Jackson to a debate. All Jackson could do was accuse Seymour of “hypocrisy” and “scaremongering”. Jackson made no attempt to explain how and why duplicated governance entities would benefit everyone or anyone.
Race, sex, sexuality and religion are not relevant to voting rights, says Seymour, and he is gaining traction.
One of Seymour’s ancestors signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Godfery said that Seymour’s position on the treaty was an irony and showed a contradiction “at the heart of New Zealand politics”.
Perhaps the fresh-faced Godfery, who looks like a descendent of a wicked white coloniser, is annoyed that a politician with Maori ancestry doesn’t buy into the racist dogma pushed by Jackson’s fellow Maori Labour MPs, the Green Party, and Maori Party extremists in Parliament.
Godfery did not mention that two other ACT Party MPs who have Maori ancestry have spoken out in Parliament against racial division.
Godfery tried to say that Seymour will be ignored because ACT has just 5 percent support.
It looks like Godfery guessed the figure because a recent Roy Morgan poll showed that Seymour had dropped to 9 percent. Godfery lauded the stand of the Maori Party without saying Roy Morgan polled just 2 percent support for them.
Sensitivity about governance and Maori radicals is widespread.
Early last year, it didn’t take long for petitioners in nine areas to collect sufficient signatures for referenda on Maori wards.
Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta panicked and outlawed petitions and votes on Maori wards.
Has Godfery has ever checked his facts? Or does he just think that because other Maori supremacists are saying something it must be true.
He presents a number of untruths as fact.
For instance, he wrote that the Maori and Green parties pursue the “textual meaning” of the Maori language Te Tiriti, which reaffirms Maori sovereignty”, while the ACT and National parties pursue the textual meaning of the English language text, in which sovereignty is ceded.
Godfery does not say and may not be aware that the text used to argue that the chiefs did not really cede sovereignty was a back-translation of the Maori text done by a Waitangi Tribunal member named Hugh Kawharu in 1986.
This self-serving “translation” had extensive footnotes in which two key words, “kawanatanga”, and “rangatiratanga”, were redefined to create a treaty in which, according to Maori supremacist radicals, chiefs ceded the right only for the British governor to govern the British migrants in New Zealand while chiefs could carry on being chiefs.
Those redefined words say what the Maori supremacists say they mean today, not what eyewitness accounts show that the chiefs understood when the Maori words of Te Tiriti were read to them in 1840.
There should be no mystery about what the treaty actually says. It is all there in the Maori text. As more people learn Maori, more can read the three simple articles without the Maori supremacist treaty-twisting commentary.
Another reason why there should be no mystery about what the treaty actually says is that the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori and National Archives has the Busby February 4 draft in English that has just two differences from the Maori text – the addition of the word “maori” in Article three and the date.
I don’t know what Godfery was thinking when he wrote no opponent “can point to a single governance” failure and cited the Ureweras as an example of co-governance success.
Urewera co-governance became a failure when most of the huts and many of the swing bridges in the area were in dire need of repair but the Tuhoe iwi wouldn’t allow the repairs so the walk was closed.
Commentator Heather du Plessis-Allan wrote:
. . . if that was place was run exclusively by DOC, like it was beforehand, and DOC shut it down for summer because it just couldn't be bothered maintaining the assets we’ve all put our taxpayer money into, we would haul the Minister over the coals in front of the media and put pressure on them until they pulled up their socks and did their job. Because they are accountable to us. But not the iwi.(2)Godfery uses a version of the Labour Government argument that “National started co-governance and we’re (Labour) just carrying on”.
The fact that former National Government Treaty Negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson set up co-governance does not make co-governance sound and should not stop another National government from dumping it.
The He Puapua plan has been under way for three years.
The working group report was kept from former Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters. The Labour Party deceitfully did not campaign on it in 2020. Once Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government gained an absolute majority, the plan was imposed.
The word is that Ardern has her eye on the election next year and, under the cover of Covid-19 hysteria, has done a deal with the Maori Party with Maori supremacy front and centre of the agenda.
Since a bad poll gives these people the jitters, now is a good time to speak out any way you can.
Unafraid of criticism, Seymour has the political arena largely to himself on co-governance. Criticism from vested interests raised his profile on the issue.
What you can do is visit your local Labour MP. First, check to see what poll number would put him or her on the street. Ask where they stand on two governments, one for Maori and the other for everyone else, and watch them squirm.
Sources
1. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2022/apr/24/in-new-zealand-maori-co-governance-is-already-underway-referendum-or-not?fbclid=IwAR3IHJvPylhEs8-C7HZlwfcVYJbyoxQ1GOqUS3za1YS8C6JASiGchzuvHew
2. See https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/opinion/heather-du-plessis-allan-this-is-the-problem-with-maori-co-governance/
Mike Butler is a journalist, author and rental property manager, who was the chief sub-editor of the Hawke’s Bay Herald-Tribune from 1986 to 1999.
17 comments:
Unfortunately it will take more than words to stop this rot.
how about a much simpler solution: split the country into two - north/south island is a natural one. let maori pick the one they want to rule using the tribal approach. let true democracy prevail in the other one. give a one-decade timeline for people to choose and transfer peacefully. perhaps then we can actually see which governance works best...
Vote for the party which promises to repeal this racisim.
"Co-governance" is simply Maori sovereignty under another name. It is clear to all New Zealanders that the plan is for a nation divided along racial lines:- "Maori" on one side, all the rest on the other side.
The ridiculous nature of this is that most "Maori" will have majority ancestry from the "other side."
Welcome to New Zimbabwe- the glorious apartheid nation of the South Pacific
Its high time someone took this writer (Godfrey) to task. He has been writing and publishing subversive material for way too long without challenge. This is of great concern to all New Zealanders and needs to be challenged every time his column is published. Of even greater concern is that he holds a university position that gives him a platform to influence young and impressionable minds that are no longer allowed to challenge the perceived 'wisdom' of the lecturer. In my day we were encouraged to have an enquiring mind, but sadly that has now changed and students are encouraged to have an accepting mind. So very, very wrong on all counts!
Yes, something along the lines of what "Anonymous" says should be done. But not give them the South Island. Let them have a portion of both North and South, a 15% portion (7% of Sth & 7% of Nth). And then let them at it. They must fund and pay for everything themselves, the 85% of New Zealanders who remain New Zealand don't give them one red cent. They also must establish their own Official nationality, and passports and citizenship, and they must apply for permission or permits etc to cross into, work in, live in, New Zealand, and New Zealand retains supreme Judicial power over all areas, because their is no doubt law and order in the Maori lands will fall apart, and lawlessness will reign supreme, there will be violence and bloodshed as they start warring and fighting among themselves for power, just like they were before the Crown civilized them, so the NZ police force and Army must retain the right to enter the Maori land.
Socrates’s point is that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Letting the citizenry vote without an education is as irresponsible as putting them in charge of a trireme sailing to Samos in a storm.
if at all there is an argument to switch from the current democracy, i think it should be to the one where one needs to qualify to vote (similar to the citizenship test that many countries enforce on immigrants).
A key problem New Zealanders face is that the partnership the Government is using to justify what amounts to totalitarian tribal control -- through the transfer of democratic power and public resources to the iwi elite -- is actually fake. Since it is constitutionally impossible for a partnership to exist between a Sovereign and the governed, it represents a massive deception of New Zealanders by the Government.
As the former Judge and Law Lecturer Anthony Willy has explained, “Emphatically there is no partnership as known to law between the Crown and a subject… All people claiming some Maori inheritance are entitled to the sum of the rights enjoyed by any other New Zealand citizen, no more and no less.”
The longer we continue to use the Treaty of Waitangi as our Founding Document and todays part-Maori are recognised as the indigenous people of New Zealand, the sooner part-Maori will take control of our Country,
The Treaty of Waitangi was "dreamt up" by James Stephens, a strong supporter of the Clapham Sect, "stuffed up" by Lord Normanby who had no idea of whether the tangata Maori had soverighty ove New Zealand or not, written by Hobson who had no legal experience and translated by Rev Henary Williams in to a primitve language that changes every time it is translated.
New Zealand only has one Founding Document that was issued by "Victoria by the Grace of God" under, "The Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and it makes no mention the the Declaration of Imdepemdence or the Treaty of Waitangi.
When are all you so called intelligence people going to do a little more research and find our true Founding Document and first Constitution that made New Zealand into a British Colony and set up New Zealand's political, legal and justice system under one flag and one law, irrespective of race colour and creed. Yiu will find it was Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840!
Logic and facts are wasted on this discussion. Maori spokespersons are not interested in those. They see power ahead and want it and invent any story to try to justify it. Repeat it enough times and they can almost believe it themselves.
I say make maori choose now for all time, do they want to be white or brown. When that decision has been made they should be given an area to govern with their own money and resources. No more free ride paid for by the white part of the country. You would not have to be very bright to figure out the result.
Until this separation has taken place this country will not move forward. History shows the greedy will keep returning until they get what they want.
Most people are asleep and don't know what is really happening and are not interested in finding out. This all goes back to 2011 when John Key's govt signed NZ up to the Declaration on UN Rights of the Indigenous Peoples. This was done under the cover of secrecy and Pita Sharples was flown to New York in the dead of night "to secure the deal" on behalf of the govt. This is something that you would expect from a socialist government, not a so-called "conservative" one. To her credit, Helen Clark's govt had refused to sign this document as she said it was incompatible with NZ's system of democracy.
When challenged, Key said that the document had no teeth and was merely symbolic. Now we can see what a lie that was. This document gives ownership of NZ to the Maoris. Under the Treaty of Waitangi, private land was sacrosanct and could not be taken but not now. New Zealanders are in for one hell of a shock when Maoris knock on their door and say they want their land and there is nothing they can do about it. Carried to its logical conclusion, I can see the day coming when European New Zealanders are stripped of all their rights and told to leave the country. Can't happen here? Yes, it can. Learn from history, but we never do do we.
"Co-governance" is an oxymoron. Just as you are either dead or not, a thing is either unique or not, governance is either applied or not. Consensus is required and contrary opinion can be recorded as in the US Supreme Court with dissenting judgements being recorded but there is only one final decision. To speak of "co-governance" is really treason against the legal authority and while dissent is allowable there can only be one final decision and those who do not accept it deserve whatever penalty is appropriate. When the line is drawn those who cross it must take the consequences.
It worked well in Zimbabwe ! Incidentally we have no obligations under the Indigenous Peoples paper signed at the U.N. it was not binding
!!!!!!
Take note of what Ruth Moreau said above, she is correct. We must first check that the tangata Maori were in fact, the first inhabitants of New Zealand with forensic evisence before the Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Paople can apply to todays part-Maori.
A classic example of the distortion associated co management or co governance is the Maunga Authority in Auckland. It has totally ignored, and from speeches at 2019 hui, deliberately spited majority user "others". With "balanced" parties the maori side operate as a coordinated orchestrated bloc. It only takes one to side with them and maori have total control. In the Maunga Authority a Council side rep Filipaina so aligns with maori that he attaches a maori whakapapa to his name. Even if they were opposed to his views, the other 5 Council reps may as well stay at home.
Nowadays no one but a few independent retired dare to oppose maori and thereby attract the automatic racist slur and associated crippling cancellation.
Who are the true indigenous people, they are the people that have been wiped from New Zealand history but do still exist.
Several years ago a mini book was published by elocal of Pukekohe called DNA To Rock The Nation. This is the story of Monica Matamua and her fight to be recognised.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.