• In 1831, thirteen Northern Chiefs wrote to the King asking him to be their guardian and protector, not only from the French but also from themselves as Nga Puhi had just gone on the rampage south slaughtering an estimated 60,000 (half the Maori population) of their fellow unarmed countrymen. The southern tribes were now arming themselves to travel north for utu – revenge.

• For Britain to bring law and order to New Zealand, Britain had to obtain sovereignty over the whole country. The British Parliament reluctantly decided after 2 years of debate, the best way to achieve this was by treaty. Captain William Hobson was instructed by the Colonial Office on the contents of the treaty and sailed for New Zealand in 1839.

• Lt. Gov. Hobson’s final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, which went missing soon after it was translated was given to the Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward on the 4th February 1840 to be translated into Maori to become, ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’. The final draft (Littlewood document) was found in 1989 confirming William’s translation was true and accurate.

• The Preamble explained to the Maoris the reason for the treaty and that the chiefs must agree to give up their territories to the Queen if Britain was to form a legal government, “….to all places of New Zealand that may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen”.

• The Preamble is the ‘essence’ of the treaty as it ceded sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain. Since 1985 the Preamble has been omitted from most Government publications of the treaty, including the public viewing panels at Te Papa. The Tiriti o Waitangi consists of the preamble, the three laws/articles and the consent from the chiefs.

• The three laws/articles that followed the preamble had to be obeyed if the chiefs agreed to cede sovereignty.   “to all places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen”.

• Article 1. The chiefs must also give up their entire government to the Queen forever.

• Article 2. The Queen guaranteed both Maori and Pakeha the same rights to their land, settlements and property. Pakeha owned or had contracts to over 50% of New Zealand at the time the Treaty was signed, therefore had to be included in Article 2. If Maori wanted to sell land, they could only sell it to the Queen on a willing seller/willing buyer basis and for an agreed amount.

• Article 3. Maori would be given the same rights as the people of England. No more – No less. Crown protection and one law for all the people of New Zealand, the first time ever for Maori.

• Consent. “We the chiefs see the meaning of these words: they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are affixed our names and marks”.

• “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws”. Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs. M.A., LL.B.

• The Tiriti o Waitangi was, “Done at Waitangi on the 6th day of February 1840, of Our Lord”. “…all signatures that were subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. Lt. Gov. Hobson. Over 500 chiefs signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language in 1840.

• The Tiriti o Waitangi was signed by tangata Maori not the tangata whenua or the indigenous people as these people had been driven to extinction by the tangata Maori some time before.

• Lt. Gov. Hobson claimed sovereignty over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by Discovery on the 21 May 1840. The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on October the 2nd 1840 and New Zealand was recognised internationally as a British Colony.       Note; the South Island was ceded by Discovery and not by the Tiriti o Waitangi.

• Once the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, it should have been filed away in our archives. It had done its job of ceding sovereignty to Britain for Britain to form a legal government in a country without law and order. A country out of control.

• Lt. Governor Hobson never made or authorized an English version of the Treaty of Waitangi to be signed by the chiefs. While the English version also stated, “Done at Waitangi on 6th February 1840”, it was never presented, read, discussed or signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, therefore it is legally, a false document.

• Hobson had the CMS print 200 copies of the Tiriti o Waitangi in Maori but not one in English.

• There is no “Partnership between Maori and the Crown” in the Tiriti o Waitangi. Once the Tiriti was signed, Maori had the same rights as the people of England. No more – No less.

• The Tiriti o Waitangi only has one Principle, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.

• There in no mention of forests or fisheries in Article 2 of the Tiriti o Waitangi.

• As Tangata Maori have continued to intermarry with the Pakeha of their own free will, they are no longer the distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.

• While the Tiriti o Waitangi made all the people of New Zealand subjects of the Queen, the Statute of Westminster adopted by New Zealand in 1947, made all the people New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

• The 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and its 1985 Amendment created the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal to make recommendations (in some cases binding on government) on alleged Maori claims dating back to 1840. Many of these claims had already had full and final settlements in the 1940’s. The Treaty of Waitangi Act allowed an unauthorized and illegal English version of the Treaty compiled by Hobson’s secretary James Freeman to be used alongside the official Tiriti o Waitangi. Pakeha cannot lodge a claim or participate in the Tribunal’s hearings and the recommendations are based mainly on the Crown’s 5 Principles and not the Tiriti o Waitangi.

• All alleged grievances are justice issues and should be heard in a Court of Law where the standards of evidence are upheld and the law applies equally to all. The Waitangi Tribunal allows the claimants to falsify evidence, omit evidence not helpful to their claim and only pay researchers if they agree to write their report in favour of the claim. This would never happen if the Courts heard these claims, the claimants and the researchers would be held accountable for their actions.

“Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and contravened the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty. If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”, Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, M.A. LL.B. 1922.

Wake up New Zealand, you are being scammed by a small group of people claiming to be a race of people that no longer exists. The Tiriti o Waitangi made us all one people.

He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people – New Zealanders.

We can still “Honour the Tiriti o Waitangi and those that had the foresight to sign it” by taking the advice of our leading Constitutional Lawyer, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the man that instigated the Treaty reforms in the 1980’s but realised with David Lange in 1990; the reforms were unfounded and now completely out of control, “It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other statutes, which give explicit recognition to the Treaty are not entrenched. They can be swept away by a simple majority in Parliament”. (c)

For further information, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz or onzf@bigpond.com.au.   28/12/2011

From Sir Apirana Ngata’s statement made in 1922 when Minister of Native Affairs, “Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”. Sir Apirana was also a qualified lawyer with a M.A and LL.B.

Sir Apirana Ngata is correct when he states.

“The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws”.

This was the sole purpose of the Tiriti o Waitangi that over 500 chiefs signed in 1840. The chief’s ceded/gave up all parts of New Zealand to the Queen for her to form a legal Government to make laws.

“Some section of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled”.
Correct, various tribes breached the Queens laws and the Imperial Troops were brought in to enforce the
law. Unfortunately, blood was spilled on both sides.

“The Law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong”. 

While the British did not plunder, they did confiscate land from those that breached the law.

“It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen”.

The chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen giving her the authority to make laws.

“The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”.

The confiscation had nothing to do with the Tiriti o Waitangi, they were breaches of the law, which the majority of the chiefs gave the Queen the authority to make and enforce.

The alleged confiscations were not Treaty breaches, they were alleged breaches of the Queen’s laws, therefore must be heard by the Court system where they are open to the public to present evidence, cross examine claimants and their researchers and if in doubt, appeal the findings. They should not be heard by the Maori only apartheid Waitangi Tribunal where non-Maori cannot participate, give evidence or appeal the findings.

Many past researchers and staff of the Waitangi Tribunal, including a past Chairman, Chief Judge Eddie Durie have admitted researches have falsified evidence, omitted evidence not helpful to the claim and only being paid if they write a report in favour of the claim. This would never happen if a Court heard these claims, the claimants and their researchers would be held accountable.

The Waitangi Tribunal also bases its findings on the Fourth Labour Government’s “Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi”, but if “the confiscations cannot be objected to in the light of the Treaty”, then why is the Tribunal using the Treaty or the Principles as a base for its finding. In fact, why do we have a Waitangi Tribunal hearing these alleged claims when the Minister of Native Affairs, Sir Apirana Ngata, a fully qualified lawyer found in 1922, they were breaches of the law and not the Treaty, therefore a legal matter of law for the Courts, not a apartheid Tribunal?

All alleged grievances are justice issues and should be heard in a Court of Law where the standards of evidence are upheld and the law applies equally to all.

The End. (c)

Prepared by Ross Baker for the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 15/12/2011.

“The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes. From this time on the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”.  Comment by Dr Ranginui Walker in ‘The New Zealand Book of Events’, page 18, (1986). When the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed the “canoe ancestors of the 14 century” were known a tangata Maori.

Maori tradition also makes it clear that the tangata whenua were light skinned with fair or reddish hair and in some cases, blue eyes. The Te Arawa tribes that moved to Rotorua and Taupo found people already inhabiting these areas. These people were called Ngati Hotu and were described by Te Arawa as, “of non-Maori appearance, having reddish hair and pale skin”. Other names given to the tangata whenua were Patupaiarehe or Turehu. Maori traditions tell of these friendly, peaceful and law abiding people teaching Maori many of their skills and cultures before they either “merged with the tangata Maori” or were exterminated by them. Captain Cook recalls he saw fair skinned Natives with reddish or blonde hair when he visited New Zealand in 1769. Tradition also tells that, the tribal wars over land and resources drove the tangata whenua into extinction.

Dr Ranginui Walker’s statement that his ancestors “merged with the tangata whenua” is confirmed as we find fair or red hair appearing in tangata Maori, although the tangata whenua were exterminated as were the peaceful Moriori of the Chatham Islands by the tangata Maori before the British became legally involved in New Zealand.

When the Pakeha started living in New Zealand in the early 19th century, they had no intention of harming the tangata Maori. They treated them with respect, although there were a few unfortunate incidents when the two cultures met. Especially when the Captain and 25 crew of the French ship La Favourite were killed and the crew retaliated by killing 250 tangata Maori and setting fire to their village. Another incident was when the ‘tangata Maori’ slaughtered the crew, men, women and children when the British ship the Boyd arrived in New Zealand in 1809.

With the signing of the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, New Zealand became a British Colony and tangata Maori were given the same rights as the people of England. At the time they signed the Tiriti o Waitangi, they were a distinct race of people called tangata Maori, but as they continued to intermarry of their own free will with the Pakeha, this race no longer exists. The British never tried to exterminate the ‘tangata Maori’ as the tangata Maori had exterminated the tangata whenua and the Moriori, They treated them with respect by giving them the same rights as the people of England under one flag and one law.

While the Government has done little research into the tangata whenua, they have researched areas of the Waipoua Forest, but the results of this research have been restricted from the public until 2065. What did they find that must be hidden from the public until 2065?  While Maori admit that not all burial sites (human remains) are Maori, the Government returns all remains to Maori for reburial or disposal without DNA or other methods of finding their ‘true” identity. The Government has just accepted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, but the people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi were called tangata Maori not tangata whenua or Indigenous People.  Once, again we are being duped by a Government that does not want us to know our true history.

As the people that arrived in the 14th century “merged with the tangata whenua” and became tangata Maori, the tangata Maori merged with the Pakeha and signed the Tiriti o Waitangi to become British Subjects, but once we adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947 we all became New Zealand Citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed.

While the Tiriti gave tangata Maori protection and one law for all the people of New Zealand, it also gave tangata Maori the responsibility to act within the law. “……… the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”. Sir Apirana Ngata, M.A., Ll.B.D. M.P., Minister of Native Affairs, 1922.

In the 1940’s the Government still under the control of the British Government held inquiries into the alleged breaches of the law against the tangata Maori and any found to be valid had full and final settlements. Once these claims had been settled or rejected as the case my be, New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947 when all the people of New Zealand became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Since this time hundreds of thousands of people from other lands have settled in New Zealand and intermarried with those already here to become New Zealand Citizens.

The End. (c).

Prepared by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 15/12/2011.

OUR NEW CONSTITUTION?

Where 15 % of the population may control 85%?

On the 20th September 2011 Muriel Newman asked the question on her website NZPCR, “Do you support the establishment for a new Constitution for New Zealand based on the Treaty of Waitangi?” Most of the comments stated, they did not want the new constitution to be based on the Treaty of Waitangi.

Here are comments that sum up the feeling of the majority people that replied. “The issue has nothing to do with what’s right – or legal or just. It has everything to do with an ethic group using a document to leaver power. It doesn’t matter what you think the Treaty says. What matters is how it is being interpreted, and the “one law for all” meaning you are seeing is NOT the prevailing view being taken by the Tribunal, the Courts or the Government. They see the Treaty as giving preferential rights to Maori as a partner of the Crown. It is rubbish as we know, but “we” (the people) are not being listened to. We should stay as far away from all this – especially if the Maori Party is in Government. We should be dead against a Treaty based constitution that can be hijacked by radical sovereignty activists not in favour of one”.

Here we have 85% of the population being dictated to by 15% and of these 15%, possibly only about 100 people in total. And the final comment on NZPCR, “Unfortunately ONZF, that is exactly what has happened – pathetic really, isn’t it”!

If this is how weak our Nation has become, then we deserve all we get and it will only get worse with a new Constitution if we do not stand up for our Tiriti o Waitangi rights – NOW!

Since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and its amendment; including the Principles and Partnership, we have allowed one small group of New Zealand citizens that can claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry to hijack our country when we don’t even know who these people really are. The Hon John Key foolishly recognised Maori as the Indigenous People of New Zealand without any forensic evidence to back up his claim.

The fact is that the Government has never investigated the following.

1.      Whether Maori were the first people to inhabit New Zealand? (See below)
2.      Where they came from?
3.      How they arrived?
4.      When they arrived.
5.      What is their DNA – true ancestry?
6.      Through intermarriage of their own free will, should Maori today be recognised as the ‘distinct race’ of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.

Maori are not “tangata whenua” – there were prior inhabitants – Dr Ranginui Walker.

“The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes”. ‘New Zealand Book of Events’, page 18 by Dr Ranginui Walker. The people that signed the Tiriti in 1840 were referred to as “tangata Maori”. (Preamble, Tiriti o Waitangi)

Maori tradition also makes it clear that the “tangata whenua” were light skinned with fair or reddish hair and in some cases blue eyes. The Te Arawa tribes that moved to Rotorua and Taupo found people already inhabiting these areas. These people were called Ngati Hotu and were described as, “of non-Maori appearance, having reddish hair and pale skin”. Te Arawa drove these people to extinction. Other names given to these people were Patupaiarehe or Turehu. Maori traditions tell of these friendly, peaceful and law abiding people teaching Maori many of their skills and culture before they were exterminated or “merged with the tangata Maori”. Captain Cook and other early visitors to New Zealand recall they saw fair skinned people with reddish or blonde hair when he visited New Zealand.

In European times (1835), the Maori traveled to the Chatham Islands and completely annihilated the peaceful Moriori. One Moriori survivor, Heremaia Tua said, “They were laid out touching one another, parent and the child. Some of the women had stakes thrust into them, were left to die in their misery. They were eaten so that corpses lay scattered in the woods, the rest were herded like sheep and killed and eaten at a later date”. As recalled by Michael King in “Moriori, a People Rediscovered”.

When the chiefs signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, they were a distinct race of people (tangata Maori), but as they have continued to intermarry of their own free will with other races, this race of people through Maori tradition have merged with the Pakeha to become  ‘tangata Pakeha’. Should ‘tangata Pakeha’ today be recognised as the distinct race of people (‘tangata Maori’) that signed the Tiriti in 1840? Mr John Clark, a past Race Relations Conciliator of Maori descent thought not when he stated, “Maori today are a race of people as one sees in legislation”. Since we adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947, we are all New Zealand Citizens. See ‘New Zealand in Crisis’ by the ONZF.

Governments have used the wrong Treaty of Waitangi.

The Tiriti o Waitangi that was signed by over 500 Maori Chiefs in 1840 gave one flag and one law to all the people of New Zealand, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. Since this time, a Treaty written in English by James Freeman, Hobson’s secretary and compiled from Busby’s earlier draft notes has been wrongly used as our founding document and has allowed our Treaty to be distorted to benefit Maori only. This English version of the Treaty was for overseas dispatch only and was never officially authorised or intended to be our founding document or to be signed by the chiefs. Article 2 of this unauthorized English text forgot to mention the settlers, whalers and speculators rights to their land, dwellings and property, which Governor Hobson made sure was in the final draft and the Tiriti o Waitangi. Article 2 of the Tiriti o Waiatngi makes no mention of exclusive rights to ‘tangata Maori’ to the fisheries or forest.

When Governor Hobson had stopped in Sydney on his way to New Zealand in 1839, he found the chiefs had sold or had contracts in place to sell large tracks of land to the settlers, whalers and speculators consisting of one fifth of the North Island and virtually the whole of the South Island before the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed. These people also had a major stake in New Zealand and therefore, had to be recognized in the Tiriti o Waitangi. See research by Jean Jackson.

After the Treaty was signed, the Government held Court inquiries into the pre-Treaty purchases for legal titles to be given to the land and its legal owner. In most cases the chiefs honoured these purchases, some being offended if they were rejected. The claims that were rejected were either returned to the chiefs or repurchased by the Crown. Some claimants did not bother or could not afford to make a claim for their purchase and the land reverted back to the original owner. Many of these pre-Treaty Deeds are held in our Archives.

Britain not only wanted to bring law and order to New Zealand as she had promised, she also had to protect her Subjects property and investments in a country without law and order. The only law that existed before the Tiriti was signed was, “Might is Right!” What was “owned” today could be fought over and lost tomorrow and in most cases the losers becoming slaves or dinner!

Governor Hobson only authorized one Treaty text to be signed by the chiefs and that was in the Maori language -  Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In 1989 the final English draft (Littlewood treaty document) compiled by Governor Hobson from Lord Normanby’s instructions and used by Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward to translate our Tiriti o Waitangi into Maori, was found. (See “The Littlewood Treaty, the true English text of the Tiriti of Waitangi found,” by Martin Doutre. www.treayofwaitangi.net.nz).

When Governor Hobson dispatched Major Bunbury to collect further signatures from the southern tribes, he wrote, “The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. Governor Hobson never made or authorised an English version of the Tiriti o Waitangi to be signed by the chiefs, but   had 200 copies of Tiriti o Waitangi printed by the Church Mission Society, but not one in English. One of these printed versions was read, discussed and signed in the Waikato with one of James Freeman’s unauthorized versions being used to receive further signatures when the printed version in the Maori language would hold no more.

By using the final draft, the Tiriti o Waitangi and the words spoken by Governor Hobson as he shook each chiefs hand at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, there is NO misunderstanding of its interpretation. “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. This was confirmed on the 5th February 1840 during the chief’s discussion with Hobson after he had read the Treaty and at the Kohimarama Conference 20 years later when 200 chiefs again swore the alliance to the Queen.

Below is a copy of Governor Hobson’s final draft of the Tiriti o Waitangi, with Rev Henry William’s changes to his translation for clarification in red. Article two was left as “all the people of New Zealand” as it referred to all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed, that owned land, dwellings and/or property at the time the Tiriti was signed. Sovereignty was also changed to “Government” in the Articles, as sovereignty was ceded to Britain in the Preamble. The articles were the laws that must be obeyed if the chiefs accepted the Tiriti o Waitangi. Over 500 chiefs signed the Treaty in 1840 and New Zealand became a British Crown Colony under English law based on the Magna Carta.

In 1947 New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster and all the people of New Zealand became New Zealand Citizens.

Copy of the Final Draft – with changes made by the Rev Henry Williams for clarification to the Tiriti o Waitangi in red.
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration of the chiefs and the (people or New Zealand to Hapus of New Zealand), and Her desire to preserve to them their lands and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty of their country and of the islands adjacent, to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving, and it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives, to establish a government amongst them.
Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint Mr. William Hobson, a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be (ceded to tukua/give up) to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.

Article First.

The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire (Soverignty to Government) of their country.                 Note. Sovereignty was ceded in the Preamble, “such parts/territories to be ceded/tukua/given up to Her Majesty.

Article Second

The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.                                             Note. All the people of New Zealand referred to Paheka.

Article Third

In return for the cession of their (Sovreignty to Government) to the Queen, the ( people of New Zealand to Maoris) shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
 

Signed, William Hobson, Consul and Lieut. Governor.
 

Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the (4th to  6th) of February 1840.

The final draft has the word ‘soverignty’ spelt wrongly and it is dated the 4th February 1840. All back translations have ‘sovereignty’ spelt correctly and are dated the 6th February 1840 therefore this is not a back translation as our government historians falsely claim. It is the final draft and stops all the distortion of our founding document giving preferential rights to Maori never intended by Governor Hobson or the chiefs that signed it in 1840. The Tiriti o Waitangi gave all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed, “the same rights as the people of England” – No more – No less!

The final draft is held in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand in Wellington but only shows one side, the side giving the same rights, “to all the people of New Zealand” is conveniently obscured.

The Tiriti o Waitangi was a lot more than an agreement with ‘tangata Maori’, it was a guarantee, a promise, by Queen Victoria and the chiefs that, “all the people of New Zealand and their property would be protected and they would be given the same rights as the people of England”. Surely we are not going to let a few people that can claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry continue to distort our Tiriti o Waitangi for their own gain. Surely, as a Nation, we have not become so weak, that a few (perhaps 100) that can claim a minute trace of ‘tangata Maori’ ancestry can hold the majority to ransom based on a false English Treaty text!

If we do not use our founding document, the Tiriti o Waitangi as our basis for the new Constitution then what do we base it on? The Bolivian Constitution, where the indigenous people have sovereignty over the whole country and are given sole rights to all its resources? It must be remembered our Prime Minister, the Hon John Key foolishly recognized ‘tangata Pakeha’  as the Indigenous People of New Zealand without forensic evidence, so it is only natural that if the Tiriti o Waitangi is NOT used as the basis for our Constitution, then it will with the help of the United Nations,  be based on the Bolivian Constitution, which is already being discussed and favoured by the Maori Parties. We must not let this happen, we must oppose it to the end. The Tiriti o Waitangi, which over 500 chiefs signed, gave the same rights to all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Oh how times have change, while Sir Apirna Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs honoured the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1922, today’s Maori politicians continue to distort it to give preferential rights to ‘tangata Pakeha’ over their fellow New Zealand Citizens. Below are extracts from, The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, by the Minister of Native Affairs, Sir Apirana Ngata in 1922.

“Let me issue a word of warning to those who are in the habit of banding the name of the Treaty around to be very careful lest it be made the means of incurring certain liabilities under the law which we do not know now and which are being borne only by the Pakeha”.

“Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot be objected to in the light of the Treaty”.

If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”.

Although ‘Pakeha’ offends some people, it has been used here, as it was the word used in the Tiriti o Waitangi to define the two races -‘tangata Maori’ and ‘Pakeha’.

THE END ©

Compiled by Ross Baker for the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 1/10/2011. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

Past members of the Waitangi Tribunal believe it is!

A recently published book by Dr John Robinson, “The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Industry Overview’ puts right his astonishing revelation that as a Waitangi Tribunal researcher he had to falsify evidence to get paid.

Hired to study Maori depopulation from 1850-1900, he found the main cause was a chronic shortage of potential parents.  The inter-tribal holocaust of the 1820s and 1830s had extinguished up to forty percent of the race, and it was customary practice to kill newborn girls.

This was not what Dr Robinson’s state masters wanted to hear. They ‘encouraged’ him to blame the decline on the ‘catastrophic’ effects of Maori land loss. And so, against all the evidence, he did.

His book sets the record straight. It exposes the corruption within the Waitangi Tribunal to write reports to allow claims to proceed.

During our research for this article we came across 5 other ex-Waitangi Tribunal members that were concerned with re-writing our history to allow some of these claims to proceed. This included former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Bassett who regularly criticised the tribunal, accusing his fellow members of bias. He criticised the tribunal’s Tauranga report, in which he recorded a minority view. In a subsequent newspaper column he accused his fellow members of “inventive arguments” and said it was time to “review the tribunal’s usefulness”. After ten years on the Tribunal he did not want to be reappointed.

Six ex-Waitangi Tribunal members have now come forward to expose the corruption within the Tribunal to deceive the people of New Zealand. We also believe there are a lot of people who work in the treaty claims industry – whether they work for the tribunal or the Office of Treaty Settlements or whatever – who share some concerns about the way history is being distorted/rewritten, but they are not in a position to voice those concerns.
Many of these claims had been heard in 1930/40 and while some were rejected others received full and final settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal has recommended and the government has settled many these claims again costing millions of dollars and some of our countries most valuable assets but from the six members of the Waitangi Tribunal that have come forward, it seems on rewritten history or corrupt evidence. See article below.

Instead of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlement researching our history to prove a breach to the Treaty of Waitangi occurred, they are now re-writing history and the Treaty to allow the claim to proceed. This was never the intention of the taxpayer funded Waitangi Tribunal or the Office of Treaty Settlements.

The Government must hold an inquiry into the alleged corruption within the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements.

Historian Giselle Byrnes criticises the tribunal.
By DIANA McCURDY, NEW ZEALAND HERALD, 10 July 2004.

Every week, 19 researchers and historians at the Waitangi Tribunal painstakingly unearth new information about New Zealand’s disappearing past. As they investigate Maori claims against the Crown, the researchers document aspects of history never before recorded on paper. In an improbable twist, the tribunal – one of New Zealand’s more controversial institutions – has become a nursery for the rewriting of New Zealand’s history.

It seems a laudable enterprise. But questions are emerging about the academic validity of the history the tribunal is producing. In a new book, The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History, Victoria University historian Dr Giselle Byrnes lays damning charges against the tribunal, describing its attempts to write history as a “noble, but ultimately flawed experiment”. The tribunal, she says, is not writing “objective history”. Rather, the reports it produces are deeply political and overwhelmingly focused on the present. It commits the ultimate faux pas of judging the past by the standards of the present.

“As an historian, I believe history is inherently political, but the tribunal does not acknowledge that it has a philosophy or even that it is writing history, instead repeatedly saying it is simply issuing a report as a Commission of Inquiry.” In some cases, the political bent of the tribunal is strongly evident. In its 1996 Taranaki report, for example, the tribunal openly responds to the Government’s fiscal-envelope policy of the previous year. “It was clearly saying in that report … that this claim is just going to blow that kind of thinking apart. It really tried to challenge that mentality that there should be a cap on treaty settlements.”

Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. “The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause.”

This is not the first time an historian has questioned the academic integrity of the history produced by the Waitangi Tribunal. Other historians – including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver – have raised similar concerns.

Other academics are also concerned, but reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes says. “I know that many historians have felt some kind of disquiet about the sort of history the tribunal has been producing over the past few years. They haven’t spoken out about it because most historians have liberal political leanings and they don’t want to be seen as undermining or criticising the whole process.”

For her part, Dr Byrnes is at pains to stress that she is a strong supporter of the claims process. She regards the tribunal as a worthy institution that deserves greater support from both the government and the general public. However, she is adamant that the history the tribunal is writing should not go unchallenged simply because it is politically sensitive. Indeed, the very fact that the tribunal’s reports receive so much public attention is further justification for exposing it to scholarly critique.

“This is an area of energy and activity that is exposing a huge amount about our history. We need to pay it serious attention because the tribunal is publishing these historical narratives and people are buying these books thinking they are truthful accounts. In lots of ways they are, but we need to engage with this.”It’s not that the tribunal is deliberately setting out to deceive, Dr Byrnes says. Ultimately, the bias and politicism of tribunal reports can be traced back to its governing legislation, which requires it to have a quasi-judicial role.

Often, the tribunal’s historians produce excellent research. But that research then has to be presented in a form palatable to the adversarial environment of the tribunal. The version, which eventually reaches the public, is the tribunal’s summary and interpretation of that research. The resulting flaws in tribunal history are typical of tribunals, commissions of inquiry and human rights investigations everywhere in the world, Dr Byrnes says. Whenever history is pressed into the service of the law – where history is employed as evidence – distortion is inevitable.

So if the bias is inevitable, what is the point of her criticism? Why not accept that the reports are quasi-judicial findings and not works of academic rigour? Dr Byrnes returns to the mass consumption of the reports by the media and the general public. She believes the tribunal should make overtly clear its inherent bias otherwise there is a danger that lay people reading tribunal reports will be misled. “If you don’t read the reports alongside the legislation it does look like it’s very biased history.”

Waitangi Tribunal chief judge Joe Williams acknowledges Dr Byrnes’ concerns. He’s heard them before, from other historians. Yes, he says, the tribunal’s reports differ from the history produced in New Zealand’s universities. However, that doesn’t mean the history in the reports is flawed. ”Personally, I don’t think the standard applied to academic history in New Zealand universities is anywhere near as rigorous as the standard applied to the recording of truth in an adversarial tribunal such as ours, in which the disciplines being applied are not just history but tikanga Maori, anthropology, economics, all sorts of things.” Judge Williams almost embraces the charge that the tribunal is a “presentist” body. He says there’s no question that the tribunal must remain sensitive to the standards of the past, but it can’t be a slave to them.

As a truth and reconciliation body, the tribunal is required not merely to describe and understand the past, but also to judge it, he says. This means that the tribunal must assess the past by the standards of today.

“This is something historians feel deeply uncomfortable with … “We are there to describe, to understand and then judge. And it’s from judgment that reconciliation comes. This is something historians have never done before, and the historians on the tribunal really tussle with this challenge of taking it beyond understanding to judgment … “Historians hate that, and I don’t blame them because in my experience it’s bloody hard.”

OUR PAST: IN SEARCH OF THE TRUE STORY
Victoria University historian Giselle Byrnes began to question the history being produced by the Waitangi Tribunal while working there as a researcher. She joined the tribunal staff in 1995 fresh from completing her PhD at Auckland University. She was excited by the chance to use her skills as an historian away from the gleaming spires. “It opened my eyes, in one sense, to the contemporary utility of history and the real-world politics in which it gets used.”

Soon she developed creeping misgivings. “I remember working at the tribunal and having lunchtime conversations with other people who worked there about the significance of the tribunal and what it was doing. For a number of reasons, it was impossible while I was there to think about this in any sustained manner.” When she left the tribunal after two years to teach Maori-Pakeha relations at Victoria University’s history department, Dr Byrnes had an opportunity to reflect more on her misgivings. She started giving students tribunal reports to read as examples of how history is used in the modern world. In turn, this motivated her to begin critiquing the reports from a scholarly perspective.

“There are a lot of people who work in the treaty claims process – whether they work for the tribunal or the Office of Treaty Settlements or whatever – who perhaps might share some concerns about the way history is used, but they are not in a position to voice those concerns.”
The End.

The One New Zealand Foundation Inc would be very interested in any other past or present member of the Waitangi Tribunal or the Office of Treaty Settlements that have concerns in relation to the work of these two institutions. The people have a right to know the truth.

1. Waikato Times, 29/10/2011
2. ONZF, 14/11/2011

Colonising Myths Maori Realities
by Ani Mikaere (Huia, ISBN: 9781869694531).
Waikato Times Review. 29/10/2011. The author, a tutor of Maori law and philosophy, has brought together a collection of papers showing the impact of what she calls Pakeha law on Maori legal thought and practices. It would be easy to dismiss this work as the rhetoric of yet another Maori academic beating the drum of Maori suppression by a colonising nation. That would, however, be an injustice. Although the rhythm of unresolved grievance and an undertone of feminism permeate the work, there are a number of issues she addresses that few others have treated with equal frankness. Most non-Maori people with an interest in the subject will find some of the issues addressed uncomfortable. They nonetheless should be addressed.
In the early days of colonisation, Maori were treated in a manner unacceptable in any nation today and some of the effects of that era are still obvious. The book is challenging and some readers will find at least some of the assumptions about modern Pakeha attitudes to things Maori untrue and even offensive. Of particular provocation is the assumption that Pakeha born in New Zealand carry an inherited guilt as the product of an invading culture and are therefore insecure in their claimed indigeneity (sic). Some will find that laughable, but this is an important debate and the author presents a legitimate opinion from one end of the academic spectrum. The work makes a valuable contribution for that alone. The End

ONZF Review 14/11/2011.

Colonising Realities and Maori Myths
Ani, I have no “inherent guilt” and my people did not “invade” this land!

It’s a pity Ani Mikaere had not read the letter from the 13 northern chiefs in 1831 inviting the King to be their protector and guardian or the chief’s speeches on the 5th February 1840 or the chief’s speeches at the Kohimarama Conference 20 years later before she put pen to paper. She may then have respected and honoured her ancestors that asked for, understood and appreciated colonization, the Tiriti o Waitangi and the English law it brought to a country “abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”. By 1840 an estimated 60,000 Maori had been slaughtered, taken as slaves or eaten. Taranaki, Auckland and most of the South Island had been deserted and Maori were on the brink of becoming extinct. We would have thought with her feminist views, Ani would have been in favour of English law – one law irrespective of race, colour, gender or creed.

It’s also a pity she did not speak to Dr Ranginui Walker before referring to Maori as “tangata whenua”. “The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes. Fr Reference. Book of Events, page 18 by Dr Ranginui Walker.om this time on the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”.            New Zealand Book of Events, page 18 by Dr Ranginui Walker.

The Tiriti o Waitangi refers to Maori as “tangata Maori” not “tangata whenua” – an earlier race of people, which Maori traditions are quite clear: were fair skinned with light or red hair. When the Pakeha disembarked they merged with the “tangata Maori”, which traditionally should have been called, “tangata Pakeha”, who helped enforce the English laws the 13 northern chiefs had asked for in 1831.

“If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”,      The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, by Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, 1922.

So Ani, we “Pakeha” should have no “inherent guilt” and our ancestors did not “invade” your country. We are extremely proud of our ancestors that were invited to be your ancestor’s guardian and protector that stopped a race of cannibals from becoming extinct and their country forcibly stolen by the French.

Proud “Pakeha” New Zealanders.

Thousands of people from England, including my ancestors (1842), travelled to New Zealand to start a new life based on the fact, Queen Victoria had ceded Sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain and had guaranteed, “The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give the chiefs, Hapus (Maori) and all the people of New Zealand (Settlers) the full chieftain of their lands, their settlements and their properties”, and “All the rights will be given to them (Maori) the same as Her doings to the people of England”. (Articles 2 & 3 of the Tiriti o Waitangi).

Since 1975 many apartheid Acts and false documents have rewritten the Treaty of Waitangi from a document that gave the same rights to all the people of New Zealand into a “Partnership between Maori and the Crown”. These Acts breach the Treaty of Waitangi by giving preferential right to today’s Maori only and are based solely on race.

On August 28, 2011 at 11:02 am Dave said on John Ansell’s blog.

“You can argue history all you like, and not get anywhere, it is the future that concerns me. Maori do have some legitimate claims and they need to be addressed, however if that is to be done by dividing up this country, its resources and even the rights of its people on the basis of race, colour or tribe then you are, by any definition on the planet, practicing racism. If that is not already illegal it will be one day and all of the decisions that are being made on that basis now, will have to be overturned. If the Treaty decrees that racism must be practiced in order to honour it, then it must be an illegal document and destroyed”. “We need an enlightened government with the strength and foresight to lead us into the future as one nation, one people, with one rule, one right and one law for all. Until then we have no future exept as a bunch of primitives squabbling over a bit of dirt”.

The Governor General of New Zealand, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, has given Her Royal Assent to these apartheid Bills. This was never the intention of Queen Victoria, the 500 chiefs that signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 or the understanding of the people that travelled to New Zealand to start a new life under the protection of Queen Victoria’s agreement/guarantee. We believe if Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II had been fully informed by her Ministers she would have refused to give Her Royal Assent to these apartheid Bills that became Act’s of Parliament.

It is interesting to note that the statement made by the Attorney General, later Prime Minister the Hon Geoffrey Palmer in his book, ‘New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis’, page 90, “I was utterly opposed to the Privy Council having anything to say at all about what the Treaty meant in New Zealand”. Attorney General, Hon David Lange stating on Australian TV on the 5th March 1990, “Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of thumb prints and 500 people. Queen Victoria was not that sort of person”.

“Some constitutional lawyers, such as Professor Philip Joseph, believe the Governor-General does retain the power to refuse Royal Assent to Bills in exceptional circumstances” (Wikipedia). We believe to hijack our Treaty of Waitangi into a document that gives preferential rights to today’s Maori over all other New Zealand citizens is an exceptional circumstance of racial division – racial discrimination never intended by the Treaty of Waitangi our founding document.

We ask that Her Majesty’s legal advisors examine this agreement (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), as we believe Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, as Head of State has given Her Royal Assent to many apartheid Bills since 1975, which breached the agreement made by Queen Victoria in 1840.

The agreement thousands of people came to New Zealand to build a better life under the Queen’s agreed/guaranteed protection of one flag and one law for “all the people of New Zealand”.

He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people.

Ross Baker
(c). One New Zealand Foundation Inc. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

Has Victoria’s Promise Been Breached

Link to the Pdf

From page 13, “New
Zealand in Crisis” by ONZF.

The Kohimarama Conference was held in Auckland in July 1860 and was
attended by over 200 chiefs mainly from the North Island. It was one of the
largest and the most influential Maori gatherings ever held. The conference
revealed the nature of Maori comprehension of the Treaty signed 20 years
earlier; in fact it was referred to as a covenant between Maori and European,
not Maori and the Crown. Some chiefs were afraid the government might use the
King Movement in the Waikato to abrogate the Treaty, a threat that had been
made by the Governor and argued in favour of a renewed commitment to the
Treaty. “Do not consent that the Treaty should be for the Europeans alone,
but let us take it for ourselves. Let this meeting be joined to the

Treaty of Waitangi, let us urge upon the Government not to withhold it
from us”.

The Conference finished with a resolution passed unanimously at the last
session. “That this conference takes cognisance of the fact that several
chiefs, members thereof, are pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent
with their declared recognition of
the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the unions of the two races”. (No
partnership with Crown)

For full report see, http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-BIM504Kohi-t1-g1-t1-body1-d2.html

Follow the links to a Pdf download

Treatise of TOW October 2011 Final Draft 30 October 2011

A Written Constitution?

Governor William Hobson at the signing of the Tiriti o Waitangi dated the 6^th February 1840 and his instructions to Major Bunbury. See below.

“This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.

            A written Constitution must be based on the Tiriti o Waitangi

On Wednesday August the 3^rd 2011 the Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and the Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples announced 12 appointees to a Constitution Advisory Panel. Sharples stating, “An important part of this review process will be consultation with Maori, particularly on the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our Constitution. The Members of this group are well placed to seek out and understand the perspective of Maori on these important issues”.

What about the other 85% of the population Mr Sharples? Who is going to seek out their perspective, especially with Tipene O’Regan as its co-chairman? Will they be using the Tiriti o Waitangi that was signed by over 500 chiefs in 1840; or the false and distorted versions and translations Maori have used to con the majority of New Zealanders out of their Treaty rights?

If we are to have a written Constitution, there are some very serious matters the Constitution Advisory Panel must prove beyond all reasonable doubt before they can consider a written Constitution. They are,

      1.     Forensic evidence that Maori were the Indigenous People of New Zealand?

2.          Recognising the Littlewood Treaty document as Hobson’s final English draft of the Tiriti o Waitangi.

3.          Recognise the Tiriti o Waitangi signed on the 6^th February 1840 as Governor Hobson’s only official Treaty text. The legal text under International Law.

4.          Recognise the 1869 Native Department back-translation as the official translation.

5.          Disregard all English versions of the Treaty of Waitangi.

6.          Should today’s Maori through intermarriage of their own free will with other races be recognised as the distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840?

Without this, the Tiriti o Waitangi and the history surrounding it will continue to be distorted by the Waitangi Tribunal, the Courts and the Government to give preference to part-Maori when, in fact, it gave the same rights to all the people of New Zealand irrespective of race, colour or creed. “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.

When Governor Hobson stopped off in Sydney on his way to New Zealand in 1839, he found the chiefs had sold or held contracts to sell virtually half of New Zealand to the settlers, whalers or speculators before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed (one fifth of the North Island and virtually the whole of the South Island), therefore, the settlers, whalers and speculators had to be included in Article 2 of the Tiriti o Waitangi as they had a major stake holding in New Zealand at the time. See research by Jean Jackson.

The Mana and Maori Party have hinted at adopting the Bolivian Constitution where the indigenous people have preferences over non-indigenous people. Part of Sharples plan when he fooled the Hon John Key into recognising Maori as the Indigenous People of New Zealand without mandate from the people or forensic evidence. Maori legends state, they were not the Indigenous People of New Zealand, they arrived here to find New Zealand already inhabited by a fair skinned people with blonde or red hair.

All New Zealanders, irrespective of race, colour or creed should be extremely concerned of a new Constitution when we look at the people that make up the Advisory Panel below. If we have a new Constitution it must be based on Governor Hobson’s final English draft and its translation, the Tiriti o Waitangi, our founding document that over 500 chiefs signed in 1840. The only Treaty that Governor Hobson authorised to be signed and the only Treaty the chiefs understood and agreed to sign at Waitangi on the 6^th February 1840 with a handshake from Governor Hobson and the words,

He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people.

“The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. Governor Hobson’s instructions to Major Bunbury when collecting further signatures from the Southern tribes.

The 6 questions above must be the first priority of the Constitution Advisory Panel before it can conduct, “Its wide-ranging review of New Zealand’s Constitutional arrangements and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution”. Without this, the Constitution Advisory Panel below would be wasting its time and taxpayers money. We may as well just continue down the same old path where the majority of New Zealanders (85%) are conned into giving part-Maori (15%) preferential rights never stated in the Tiriti o Waitangi or intended by those that signed it in 1840.

We do need a written Constitution to stop all this nonsense, but it must be based on Governor Hobson’s final draft and its translation, the Tiriti o Waitangi our founding document that was signed at Waitangi on the 6^th February 1840 that gave the same rights to all the people of New Zealand irrespective of race, colour or creed.                                              

See www.onenzfoundation.co.nz and www.treatyofwaitangi.net.co.nz

Constitutional Advisory Panel

Co-chairs: Emeritus Professor John Burrows; Sir Tipene O’Regan,

Members: Peter Chin, Deborah Coddington, Michael Cullen, John Luxton, Bernice Mene, Leonie Pihama, Hinurewa Poutu, Linda Smith, Peter Tennent, Ranginui Walker.

Prepared by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.  4/10/2011.