According to Te Ao Maori News, which is a part of Maori Television, and which is funded by taxpayers, Howe said: “They’ll tell you what they think, and what they think happened and the councillors [have] got no argument to counter it.”
The Te Ao Maori News story is far from objective reporting. The story exists solely to name and shame a critic of the current treaty and co-governance orthodoxy. Howe also questioned whether Maori are indigenous.
He said “We’re all settlers here in NZ: Maori, Pakeha, Chinese we’re all settlers because we all came by boat – and before Māori got here its possible there were other people here.”
By both definitions of “indigenous” (“originating or occurring naturally in a particular place” or “existing in a land from the earliest times before colonists arrive”) Howe is correct.
People who were here when the canoes arrived, according, not to me, but according to arch-treatyist Ranganui Walker in Struggle Without End, which cited Maori oral histories.
Howe’s statement on Maori indigeneity should be indisputable in a free-thinking, literate nation.
He said there were very different versions of what happened at Parihaka, that an early waka found people already living up the Waitara River and that the land between Onaero and Urenui was sold in 1873 – not confiscated.
The Te Ao Maori story focuses on comments from one councillor, Te Waka McLeod, who is a Maori ward councillor, who isn’t a committee member, but who said she attended the meeting online.
McLeod, who has Scots and Irish ancestry, and who is described as having a history of representing her Taranaki Maunga iwi, said that Howe’s narrative was simply wrong.
McLeod said “the truth about war and land confiscation had been widely known for at least 30 years,” and cited the Waitangi Tribunal’s 300-page 1996 Taranaki Report as evidence.
But are Waitangi Tribunal reports a sound source of information?
I have gone through a number of Waitangi Tribunal reports while researching Treaty of Waitangi settlements. (See Treaty transparency below)
I found that the reports are not objective reports that follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The reports are carefully woven persuasive arguments that started with central government’s decision to pay historical cash compensation, and ended up rewriting the history of what we used to call the Maori wars.
For instance, the covering letter on the Taranaki Report that McLeod cites, from tribunal chair Eddie Durie to Treaty Negotiations Minister Doug Graham, shows that the government had already decided that “a negotiated settlement” would happen and that the tribunal was reporting its initial opinion.
In other words, the 1996 incarnation of the New Zealand government had changed its mind of how it’s 1865 forerunner had dealt with the complicated problem that developed in Taranaki as waves of English, Irish, and Scottish settlers arrived, some of whom may be the great-grandparents of Cr McLeod.
“In 1865 Governor George Grey confiscated the whole of Taranaki, declaring that Māori who fought back against settler encroachments had rebelled against Queen Victoria,” McLeod said, adding that “multiple Crown inquiries later found the rebellion charge was unfounded, meaning the confiscations breached the law – but the land was not given back.”
So, the 1865 government, that was dealing with the situation in 1865, enacted legislation that accurately concluded that some Maori, who had been granted the status of British subjects by the Treaty of Waitangi, and who were fighting against the government, were rebelling, or, carrying out an armed resistance to an established government.
I don’t dispute that government agencies have, since 1865, stated that the 1860s rebellion was not a rebellion, but that does not change any of the facts of what happened in 1865, don’t you think?
Because Cr McLeod’s information appears to come solely from the Waitangi Tribunal and her iwi, it is quite understandable why she looks utterly convinced both of her righteousness and Howe’s utter wrongness.
Evidence of what happened in 1865 continues to exist despite the poorly informed utterances of local and central government functionaries and politicians.
For instance, Cr McLeod may be aware that Taranaki was largely deserted in 1839 when Wiremu Kingi sold the entire area to the New Zealand Company in 1839, and again in 1842.
This is relevant because the same Wiremu Kingi triggered the first Taranaki war in 1860 when he tried to stop another chief, Te Teira Manuka, from selling his land to the government.
Taranaki had been largely deserted since 1821, when most left after Te Wherowhero’s Waikato fighters slaughtered 1200 Te Atiawa people at Pukerangiora Pa, many of them clubbed to death personally by Te Wherowhero after the battle. (See Basic facts about Taranaki history below)
So, a council sets up a public engagement committee, a ratepayer raises concerns about iwi involvement in the council, his presentation was terminated for being "offensive", a Maori ward councillor was given a media platform to smear the ratepayer, the media platform is government funded.
By the way, the “local democracy reporter” allowed Howe 122 words in his story while giving McLeod 252 words.
This story is going on in many ways throughout New Zealand, which raises the question as to whether New Zealand is still free-thinking, literate nation that is part of the free, democratic world.
There is the warning that if you import the third world, you become the third world, and third-worldism wants third-world nations to unite against first-world influence.
Sad to say, New Zealand does not need to import the third world. The third-world iwi self-styled “nations” are already here.
It looks like stupidity and weakness by people in local and central government are letting the iwi “nations” take over.
Bear in mind that New Plymouth has a council that flies the Maori sovereignty flag alongside the New Zealand flag.
Sources
New Plymouth councillors rebuff ‘pulling the wool’ iwi history claim https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2026/04/11/new-plymouth-councillors-rebuff-pulling-the-wool-iwi-history-claim/ Treaty transparency. https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TreatyTransparencyAug2014.pdf
Here are some basic facts about Taranaki history https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/taranaki
By both definitions of “indigenous” (“originating or occurring naturally in a particular place” or “existing in a land from the earliest times before colonists arrive”) Howe is correct.
People who were here when the canoes arrived, according, not to me, but according to arch-treatyist Ranganui Walker in Struggle Without End, which cited Maori oral histories.
Howe’s statement on Maori indigeneity should be indisputable in a free-thinking, literate nation.
He said there were very different versions of what happened at Parihaka, that an early waka found people already living up the Waitara River and that the land between Onaero and Urenui was sold in 1873 – not confiscated.
The Te Ao Maori story focuses on comments from one councillor, Te Waka McLeod, who is a Maori ward councillor, who isn’t a committee member, but who said she attended the meeting online.
McLeod, who has Scots and Irish ancestry, and who is described as having a history of representing her Taranaki Maunga iwi, said that Howe’s narrative was simply wrong.
McLeod said “the truth about war and land confiscation had been widely known for at least 30 years,” and cited the Waitangi Tribunal’s 300-page 1996 Taranaki Report as evidence.
But are Waitangi Tribunal reports a sound source of information?
I have gone through a number of Waitangi Tribunal reports while researching Treaty of Waitangi settlements. (See Treaty transparency below)
I found that the reports are not objective reports that follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The reports are carefully woven persuasive arguments that started with central government’s decision to pay historical cash compensation, and ended up rewriting the history of what we used to call the Maori wars.
For instance, the covering letter on the Taranaki Report that McLeod cites, from tribunal chair Eddie Durie to Treaty Negotiations Minister Doug Graham, shows that the government had already decided that “a negotiated settlement” would happen and that the tribunal was reporting its initial opinion.
In other words, the 1996 incarnation of the New Zealand government had changed its mind of how it’s 1865 forerunner had dealt with the complicated problem that developed in Taranaki as waves of English, Irish, and Scottish settlers arrived, some of whom may be the great-grandparents of Cr McLeod.
“In 1865 Governor George Grey confiscated the whole of Taranaki, declaring that Māori who fought back against settler encroachments had rebelled against Queen Victoria,” McLeod said, adding that “multiple Crown inquiries later found the rebellion charge was unfounded, meaning the confiscations breached the law – but the land was not given back.”
So, the 1865 government, that was dealing with the situation in 1865, enacted legislation that accurately concluded that some Maori, who had been granted the status of British subjects by the Treaty of Waitangi, and who were fighting against the government, were rebelling, or, carrying out an armed resistance to an established government.
I don’t dispute that government agencies have, since 1865, stated that the 1860s rebellion was not a rebellion, but that does not change any of the facts of what happened in 1865, don’t you think?
Because Cr McLeod’s information appears to come solely from the Waitangi Tribunal and her iwi, it is quite understandable why she looks utterly convinced both of her righteousness and Howe’s utter wrongness.
Evidence of what happened in 1865 continues to exist despite the poorly informed utterances of local and central government functionaries and politicians.
For instance, Cr McLeod may be aware that Taranaki was largely deserted in 1839 when Wiremu Kingi sold the entire area to the New Zealand Company in 1839, and again in 1842.
This is relevant because the same Wiremu Kingi triggered the first Taranaki war in 1860 when he tried to stop another chief, Te Teira Manuka, from selling his land to the government.
Taranaki had been largely deserted since 1821, when most left after Te Wherowhero’s Waikato fighters slaughtered 1200 Te Atiawa people at Pukerangiora Pa, many of them clubbed to death personally by Te Wherowhero after the battle. (See Basic facts about Taranaki history below)
So, a council sets up a public engagement committee, a ratepayer raises concerns about iwi involvement in the council, his presentation was terminated for being "offensive", a Maori ward councillor was given a media platform to smear the ratepayer, the media platform is government funded.
By the way, the “local democracy reporter” allowed Howe 122 words in his story while giving McLeod 252 words.
This story is going on in many ways throughout New Zealand, which raises the question as to whether New Zealand is still free-thinking, literate nation that is part of the free, democratic world.
There is the warning that if you import the third world, you become the third world, and third-worldism wants third-world nations to unite against first-world influence.
Sad to say, New Zealand does not need to import the third world. The third-world iwi self-styled “nations” are already here.
It looks like stupidity and weakness by people in local and central government are letting the iwi “nations” take over.
Bear in mind that New Plymouth has a council that flies the Maori sovereignty flag alongside the New Zealand flag.
Sources
New Plymouth councillors rebuff ‘pulling the wool’ iwi history claim https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2026/04/11/new-plymouth-councillors-rebuff-pulling-the-wool-iwi-history-claim/ Treaty transparency. https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TreatyTransparencyAug2014.pdf
Here are some basic facts about Taranaki history https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/taranaki
5 comments:
Looking ahead to 2040 when He Puapua/tribal rule are installed, there will be initial joyful celebrations to mark the occasion - but once these are over, the true intent of Iwi - utu - an of "trace" Maori will be crystal clear. Be very afraid for your children's future.
Anonymous. He Puapua is here already. Don't have to wait until 2040.
Anon 3.06
Hopefully by 2040 either the public will have realized what is going on and revolted against this corruption of democracy, or
they will have moved to a proper democratic country where there are no racist politicians.
my off spring are all Australian citizens now as are my grandchildren. I am so glad their hard earned taxes do not go to Iwi, treaty settlements or anything paying Maori to sit on their unproductive backsides. We have lost so much pandering to racist bullies and so many skilled Kiwis only come back to retire.
And who ever heard of women and children bearing white feathers as a peaceful protest while the men who are actually the ones the soldiers are after hide behind them? That’s actually called a human shield!
So te kingi and his followers push forward a bunch of women and children - give them white feathers - and history writers say they’re peaceful protestors- they were anything but!
They were sick and scared women and children sacrificed by the men they relied upon as cannon fodder for the troops - who, historical records categorically state did not harm them.
Now the white feathers….the white feathers were a symbol borrowed from the moriori on the chathams - one of te kingis followers was at the Chathams gorging on cannibalised moriori people.
This is where the white feathers came from. It wasn’t some benevolent peaceful uprising.
Oh the wicked web of lies we are lead to believe by these grifters
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.