In a Q&A interview with Jack Tame, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer acknowledged Māori have separate rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi as tangata whenua. When pressed on whether this meant different standards of citizenship, she said, “We have different expectations and different rights, absolutely.”
She argued these rights are essential to protect all New Zealanders from “corporate exploitation” and the “Atlas agenda coming at us”.
Ngawera-Packer offered as proof of an “Atlas conspiracy” the suggestion that the libertarian leaning Atlas Network is chaired by Debbi Gibbs, whose mother, Dame Jenny Gibbs, is an ACT party donor.
While evasive regarding answers surrounding the use of parliamentary resources in relation to the hīkoi to Parliament, organised by a Te Pāti Māori staffer, Eru Kapa-Kingi, Ngarewa-Packer admitted: “He’s partly paid by parliamentary services.”
However, she alluded to the practice being commonplace amongst political parties. She attempted to distance her party’s involvement by stating the hīkoi was “run by the people.”
When asked if the hīkoi was a recruitment drive, she, again, deflected saying: “I cannot say that that’s been our focus.” However, she continued: “The priority was to make sure our people knew how to get on the Māori role.”
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
While evasive regarding answers surrounding the use of parliamentary resources in relation to the hīkoi to Parliament, organised by a Te Pāti Māori staffer, Eru Kapa-Kingi, Ngarewa-Packer admitted: “He’s partly paid by parliamentary services.”
However, she alluded to the practice being commonplace amongst political parties. She attempted to distance her party’s involvement by stating the hīkoi was “run by the people.”
When asked if the hīkoi was a recruitment drive, she, again, deflected saying: “I cannot say that that’s been our focus.” However, she continued: “The priority was to make sure our people knew how to get on the Māori role.”
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
16 comments:
Packer can distance, obfuscate and deny all she likes but the majority see her and what the maori political wing of the activists march stand for and it is everything but unity! It is power, money and control for the 3% that they represent (and it may not even be 3%).
The co-leader of the racist party admits to racist views on rights and privileges 🤔.
Can’t say I am shocked, but I’ll be shocked if MSM makes that obvious conclusion.
Maori - the people of mokomokai. They developed this into a lucrative trade by killing and selling heads to Europeans. Fortunately many Europeans looked after the heads now being returned to their forbears as grisly reminders of the bloodthirsty culture of Maori- disunited by definition as I find it hard to believe that in a united society people would donate their heads for mokomokai.
Packer and her ilk can dress Maori history and culture up any way they like. But killers they were and, it seems, destroyers they are.
Maori have NO 'separate rights' as written in the 6/2/1840 Maori language treaty, the 4/2/1840 final draft or the 1869 official back translation.
So just WHAT treaty is Packer referring to that give Maori 'separate rights' to ALL the people of NZ?
Awarding indigenous (however defined) people rights that other citizens do not have arguably began in the 18th century with treaties made between colonial powers and American Indian tribes. These rights tended to revolve around ancestral lands and the resources they contained. The recognition of Native Title by Australia under Keating was largely a continuation of this tradition.
The 'special rights' alluded to by these various instruments are collective i.e. they apply to a people as a whole. Giving individuals special rights that others don't have is changing the goalposts.
In Aus, the ancestral lands approach to native special rights works in some instances but not in others depending on the precise definition of an Aboriginal people (the term 'tribe' is not always accurate as a 'people' may, according to the Aus Govt, consist of people who are not related and do not even speak the same indigenous language), and how mobile those 'people' are - they may vacate an area for lengthy periods while other 'peoples' traverse it.
Here in NZ I do not think we can lay the basis for 'special rights' as doing so purely on the basis of ethnicity amounts to racial discrimination while other criteria just don't stick except for isolated cases e.g. some East Cape Maori.
Maori are NOT 'tangtata whenua', they are 'tangata Maori' - as that part-Maori Ngarewa-Packer's gospel, "Te Tiriti", appropriately records. There were others here in these lands before them, but Maori being Maori, they did what they did to the Moa and several other species and then, of course more recently, to the Moriori. Maori are not indigenous, and UNDRIP has no application to NZ - as the coalition Govt has stated. The only additional "rights" Maori now have are those which have been subsequently created by politicians and the judiciary. Those now need to be gone, if New Zealand wants any chance of thriving.
There was a time, not too long ago, that people with delusions of superiority and grandeur used to get locked up in asylums. Now the country has gone mad, telling them they are superior.
THE SO-CALLED "CERTIFIED COPY" of the English treaty that was used to set up the 1975 TOW Act, and is the treaty referred to by the grievance industry because of the “special rights” it accords them. No mention of “all the people of New Zealand” in this Freeman composite version. The grievance industry calls this one te Tiriti o Waitangi, for good reason.
Article the Second
Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.
The So Called “Certified Copy explained by Martin Doutre can be found here:
https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/CertifiedTreaty.html
This is the dishonest version of the “treaty” that the State and Iwi hold over us, while we are referring to the original honest Maori language treaty, Busby’s final draft (Littlewood) and the official 1869 back translation of the Maori language treaty.
There are no “principles” in any, but the “So called certified copy” conveys ‘special rights’, and that is why clause 2 of the Principles Bill have them included.
Why some East Cape Maori? They have been part of NZ for years albeit remote. They are not living a crude murderous stone age existence ( or am I wrong) I am sure they have cellphones and jump into their cars to get McDonalds and Fish 'n "Chops ( homage to Kerre). No doubt yhey wear clothes and footwear bought with the generous NZ taxpayer handouts ( I hear that their establishments are flush with designer wear). I assume that if they want to get onto a flying canoe and travel the long white cloud and beyond, they get a NZ passport and are grateful for NZ diplomatic resources overseas.They may bring a different dimension to being an NZer as do people of other descent and heritage but deserving of being treated differently? I think not. That includes fencing them off with a Mexican type wall or treating them as crude natives.
Time to make a submission to Seymour’s treaty bill! Democracy is a fragile thing and needs to be protected - unless we want our children to pay for our complacency!
The TPM plan is now clear - to gain up to 20 seats and hold the balance of power in Parliament permanently based on a much larger Maori electoral roll where ancestry even in is very small quality is the key criterion.
Ms Packer - with 50% European heritage - has done very well using this strategy.
Why has the NZ Govt used the fraudulent Freeman ToW version as the "Certified" English text. Answer: It did not have the original Hobson's text from 1840. It also ignored Sir Apirana's prior 1922 work (an inconvenient truth?). Why did the Govt not have the Hobson's text? Answer: It was lost, only rediscovered among Littlewood family papers in 1989 and first appeared publicly in 1992. Phil Parkinson of the Alexander Turnbull Library identified, in 2000, the handwriting as being that of James Busby, the British Resident, who helped draft the Treaty of Waitangi with Hobson. In spite of this the Govt has repeatedly and doggedly sought to suppress this and stick with the fraudulent Freeman version. Why is Sir Apirana's 1922 explanation relevant to this: Answer: Whereas he gave an explanation of the differences between the Maori and Freeman texts that was relevant at the time, when his translation of the text is compared with the rediscovered Littlewood draft, it shows that Freeman's version erroneously included Forests & Fisheries and omitted to mention "all New Zealanders" in Article 2. So, we have an Act of Parliament that is based on a big lie. That lie was compounded by citing "Principles" that clearly are non-existent figments of a vivid imagination. Root cause analysis would suggest that you cannot fix this by compounding the lie. Go back, change the certified version to the actual Hobson (Littlewood) draft and clean out the ToW Act to remove reference to principles. Or is that something for the too hard basket?
Anon@8.27, or check out TE Young's translation of 1869 which aligns with the Littlewood version.
But they did have on record, the official 1869 back translation of the Maori language treaty, by Mr T E Young of the Native Department. This back translation was done at the request of the Colonial government of the day, and is a perfect match to the Maori language text, and as we now know, a correct interpretation of Busbys final draft. There was no excuse for an apartheid 1975 TOW Act, Period, but to use a fake "imposter" document, instead of the original treaty, points to a deliberate nefarious agenda at play by our governments. They have been outed, and our fingers are pointing at them to reverse this apartheid agenda ASAP!!
Thanks, had forgotten about that one which also serves to reinforce the point that Palmer et al got it so horribly wrong and that fixing the root cause. Our coalition needs to get their heads together and their fingers out as said above to stop the separatists perpetuating all this nonsense. Using the blessed patch & mend approach instead of the rip out and fix one is the only way that the apartheid can be eradicated. NZ deserves far better than what has been perpetrated upon it and as Dr Muriel Newman has written, the Maori seats have been weaponised and must also be gone.
In my haste in that last post, I got it back to front, we need the rip out and fix NOT patch and mend.
Post a Comment