At a time when, relative to most other First World countries, our prospects for future prosperity appear guaranteed, why is it that we seem unable to recognise the obvious roadblocks that could derail our plans for a utopian existence.
Of course, history is littered with countries that have dared to dream but ended up becoming slaves in their own lands.
My point is that we are one of the few who have it within us not to make the same mistakes when it is our time for being held to account for or own misdeeds.
So, what is it that currently threatens all the good work and sacrifice of previous generations who built this multi cultural society that ranks at the top of list of enviable safe places to live and raise children.
I can think of a number that are staring us in the face but before doing so, I want to create a background to this vulnerability - the reasons why we have allowed it to happen and the likelihood of serious consequences should nothing be done to avert it.
In order to provide answers to those questions about our future, we must examine the history of missed opportunities mainly by governments of all persuasions.
That process should start with the period immediately following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi because it set the scene for peaceful coexistence between the Tangata Whenua (First People of the Land - Maori and Moriori) and the European immigrants.
And unlike most other international takeovers, this one was the result of peaceful negotiations rather than by way of military led invasion by a foreign country.
In fact, the troops sent by the Sovereign to the British Colony came at the request of the Paramount Maori Chiefs who feared for the survival of their own tribal affiliations threatened by lawless rogue tribes who were roaming virtually unchallenged across both Islands. They were supposed to be there as peacekeepers amongst all citizens rather than to ensure the continuation of colonial rule. And for a while it worked and the tribal killing was halted.
However, history shows that the total Maori population had fallen from approximately 100,000 to only 60,000 during the lawless period known as the “Musket Wars” that featured fighting only between Maori.
Following on from the Treaty signing, the rural sector was dominated by a period when huge chunks of Maori tribal lands were bought by the Crown at negotiated prices acceptable to Maori leadership and subsequently leased to pakeha run-holders.
Unfortunately, these relatively peaceful negotiations could not erase the feelings of betrayal that had built up due to the Crown’s often unlawful confiscation of Maori land from tribes that were innocent of some of the atrocities committed by the aforementioned rogue groups like Te Kooti during the “Maori Wars” that had followed the Treaty signing - mainly by groups violently opposed to the Waitangi agreement.
Since those times, regrettably, in spite of all the tribal settlements reached as compensation based on the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal and other Land Courts, this perceived injustice still exists and for many, it is like a sore that will not heal.
That brings me to my conclusion of where we are currently at as a nation and what must be done to avoid the consequences of this apathy.
Yes, l kid you not - in my humble opinion, we have arrived at a flashpoint where self-appointed Maori and Pakeha activist scholars, politicians and judges have abused what remains of the democratic system coupled with the appeasing and apathetic attitude of some members of our parliamentary leadership who are allowing this to happen.
Surely, it is time to say enough is enough.
Because in the region where I live which is one of the few in the country with a majority Maori population, the bulk of the citizens want nothing more than to use the same opportunities available to all Kiwis in pursuit of an environment that will provide everything necessary to sustain and benefit their own families.
For them, all this talk about multi-cultural governance is just idle chatter, because most of them are tied up just trying to make a living. Most of them are decent, hardworking Kiwis who see it as a low priority in their current survival mode.
Sadly, while this attitude is understandable, should it become commonplace throughout the country, there is a good chance that those clandestine operatives will expand their influence in a governing system, ironically designed specifically to protect our sovereignty .
If that happens, then by the time enough of us wake up, our future may have been stolen from in front of our own eyes.
We need to act now in order to save us from ourselves.
At the next general election, we should vote for those parties who recognise the threat for what it is and are promoting policies that will bring about the changes that are necessary to avoid a disaster l believe is a real possibility.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.

15 comments:
I agree Clive. Who will lead us the charge? Many have spoken on thus topic. Many have no idea what is even happening!! This minority group are wagging the tail very effectively!! So, how does one launch a narrative to galvanize NZers?
Over the years it has been politicians of mainly National and Labour that have caved in to the activists and minorities and implemented law that has created the division we now have.
Some of us thinking kiwis have warned against such moves to no avail.
Clive , I have always. read your contributions , but this one is timid .
Therefore, I will say what NZ has to understand .
NZ needs the National seats but not the weak National leadership so only VOTE electorate National.
Party Vote the either coalition partners ACT or NZF and that is everyone who wants NZ to prosper and get rid of the debt and costs Labour inflicted on NZ.
Completely agree Clive - I'll be voting ACT.
Hopefully all those disgusted with Luxon will come to ACT or NZF - who MUST bury the hatchet (ulp) but it's a bit dicey isn't it?
ACT have done a wild Houdini performance, somehow convincing sheep that “others” are the problem. Meanwhile they are actually in government and have the power the enact policies that improve the economy, society, and quality of life for those who want to go get it. What do we get instead? A ministry of bureaucracy. Low GDP. Tax breaks for landlords and tobacco companies. Big brother laws to definite words! The rich are getting richer, and people thinking that minorities are causing the damage have been had. Don’t vote ACT. They are hellbent on division, big government, and destruction of democracy.
The people who promoted and encouraged the steady white-anting of our unique kiwi culture, and constitution, assisted of course by many of the woke judiciary, are already in Parliament or on the bench. Voting harder for the traitors who caused the problems we now have seems excessively hopeful. Better perhaps to begin to quietly form the replacement institutions we will need following full collapse.
Read carefully and Think, Anon of 11.44! ACT specifically works for less bureaucracy, smaller government. There are some good interviews on Youtube.
@Anonymous 11:44pm A lot of claims there, but very little evidence.
ACT can certainly be criticised on policy grounds — that's democracy. But saying ACT is "hellbent on division" ignores that many of its core policies are about reducing government interference, lowering barriers for business, improving productivity, strengthening free speech, and applying equal rules to everyone.
If ACT's policies are wrong, debate the policies. But blaming ACT for every problem in New Zealand while offering no evidence is just another political slogan.
Anyone got a reasonable estimate of the maybe numbers of people in NZ who want an apartheid nation ?
More than 100,000 ?
???
I totally agree with you Basil and totally disagree with anonymous 11.44am. Luxon displayed cowardice by spiking David Seymour’s Treaty of Waitangi Bill. National is obviously worried and announced today, if re-elected , will extend parental leave. The last thing NZ needs is more social welfare.
Rob Beechey .The contribution by Andy Oakley yesterday really had a valid point that should be taken to the highest level for a Judicial Review and then onto Parliament or Vice Versa.
Clearly the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi was done on different forms when it was taken "on tour" to collect signatures .
Just Maybe , the South Island signatures were done on the non TOW copy which puts the Ngai Tahu claims in a very different situation as they were signed on Ruapuke Island - Foveaux strait Otakau - Dunedin and Christchurch vicinity .
Ellen surmises “ACT specifically works for less bureaucracy”. This very ACT party created a brand new ministry that did not exist before. Its job is the ministry of regulation, despite the fact that regulation is already a function of all departments. I can bring this evidence to Ellen, however the usual pattern with internet discourse when someone is presented with facts that go counter to their world view, is not to adjust their world view, but to dismiss or warp the presentation of the facts.
Let’s see how we go this evening, Ellen.
ACT has its faults like every other human activity and may be said to be the worst choice on offer - except for all the others.
I don't think anon 8-04 you have any idea why the new Ministry for Regulation was formed. It is precisely that every Ministry has it's own regulations that the current regulation system is such a mess. The new Ministries job is to tidy up that mess and try and get the system back on track
I think this raises some important questions about New Zealand’s future, but I also think it rests on several assumptions that deserve closer scrutiny.
Firstly, it’s fair to ask whether our institutions are serving New Zealanders well, whether economic inequality is growing, or whether governments have made long-term planning mistakes. Those are legitimate concerns that people across the political spectrum share.
Where I disagree is with the conclusion that New Zealand is somehow drifting towards “self-destruction” because of MÄori participation in governance or because activist academics, judges, or politicians are supposedly undermining democracy.
The historical picture is considerably more complex than you suggest.
The Treaty of Waitangi did not simply establish peaceful coexistence that later went off course because of activists. It was a constitutional agreement that was understood differently by the Crown and many rangatira from the outset. Those differing understandings, combined with breaches by the Crown - including unlawful land confiscations acknowledged by successive governments, courts, and the Waitangi Tribunal - had profound and lasting consequences. Recognising those facts is not rewriting history; it is acknowledging it.
Likewise, portraying the New Zealand Wars primarily as conflicts caused by groups opposed to the Treaty overlooks that many conflicts arose over disputed land purchases, sovereignty, and Crown expansion. Historians continue to debate aspects of these events, but there is broad agreement that the causes were far more complicated than suggested.
The argument also presents a false choice: either we preserve democracy, or we acknowledge MÄori rights under the Treaty. In reality, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. The Treaty is part of New Zealand’s foundation. Debates about co-governance, resource management, or MÄori representation are political questions that should be openly discussed and democratically decided. People can reasonably support or oppose specific policies without framing them as an existential threat to the nation.
Another point worth considering is that most New Zealanders - MÄori and non-MÄori alike - are primarily concerned with housing affordability, healthcare, education, wages, crime, and the cost of living. Those are the issues that affect everyday life. Framing the country’s biggest challenge as a hidden constitutional takeover risks distracting from problems that have much more immediate impacts on people’s wellbeing.
Finally, I think language matters. Terms like “clandestine operatives” or suggesting that our future is being “stolen” imply an organised conspiracy without providing evidence. Healthy democracies depend on robust disagreement, but they also depend on evidence, not suspicion. We should absolutely debate constitutional arrangements, Treaty interpretation, and public policy - but those debates are strongest when they rely on facts, historical nuance, and good faith rather than fear of a non-existent force.
New Zealand has navigated difficult questions before. Our future won’t be secured by assuming one group is secretly undermining the country nor secured by any particular group; it will only be secured by continuing to debate difficult issues openly, recognising historical realities, and focusing on practical solutions that improve life for everyone in Aotearoa.
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.