Manaaki Tāngata

13/12/2023

Although the protest at Te Papa was appropriate and courageous, unfortunately the rhetoric that accompanied it lacked a coherent and unified message, which allowed the media and commentators to reframe the action into anything they pleased.

It is unfortunate that so few people understand what the Treaty actually is and I have yet to find anyone who can, therefore, articulate the relevance of the Treaty today, vis a vis the political structure and thus the lawful validity of the establishment.

So, the Treaty is a sovereign accord between each of the Signatories and the Crown (represented in the discussions and incompletely recorded by the Treaty document) allowing the Crown to exercise its sovereign authority over its British subjects, within the bounds of the Signatory's area of influence (mana whenua?). In essence, this created 512 (sic) separate sovereign agreements, but unfortunately there was never any consideration or meaningful dialogue to agree the mechanism for effecting the joint sovereign authority when the sovereign jurisdiction conflicted - e.g. what mechanism was in place to resolve inter-personal conflict between Maori and Pakeha? There was good reason this was never discussed - the Crown wished to effect its sovereign authority as the supreme authority, which it subsequently and unlawfully did by Hobson's proclamation of supreme sovereignty, in May of that year. This proclamation was represented by the document, which is known as the "English version of the Treaty" which was then presented to the British Parliament, in October of 1840, as the Treaty of Waitangi, which was perceived as the Crown's legal basis to effect sovereignty over all inhabitants of New Zealand...the great fraud effected by Hobson, on both Māori and the Crown.

So, what does this mean? Simply, that the basis for the Crown's claim to hold supreme sovereign authority is without a lawful basis - the Crown is not a lawful sovereign authority and thus has no singular lawful jurisdiction within New Zealand. If we are to honour the Treaty, the Crown can only exercise sovereign authority, jointly and severally with each Treaty signatory, assuming that there is a willingness by each Signatory representative to exercise joint sovereignty.

Had the display in Te Papa explained this, then this would have been a proper record of events. Of course, it did not do so, which is why the action taken was warranted. In fact, the Te Papa display is only the tip of the iceberg, as the reshaping of this historical event is falsely represented in all walks of life, which is the basis of institutional oppression and subjugation of Maori - colloquially known as institutional racism (a lazy interpretation of events in my view).

This is where it gets interesting. Exercising sovereignty in 1840 was solely based on geography, extending to the rohe controlled by each individual hapu. Move forward to today, we live in a nation without boundaries. So how can each individual sovereign accord be practically effected? In my view, to try and effect geographical hapu sovereignty is not economically viable or practical, at any level. As a simplistic example, imagine that each sovereign area had its own roads. Putting aside the establishment and maintenance of these, just consider that the use of each road would be subject to differing rules. Travel from Auckland to Hamilton could easily involve having to drive on different sides of the road as one transits different hapu boundaries. One can see the problem. The sovereignty of 1840 must be evolved, which means that the individual sovereignty must be subsumed by a higher authority.

The obvious answer, the various Hapu would collectively agree that everyone driving on New Zealand roads, drive on the left. This is the essence of sovereignty - a hierarchy of authority, with the supreme authority being that which resolves the conflict, which means that everyone is in agreement. What is important to note, is that this is NOT co-governance, rather it is the establishment of a supreme authority!

The Treaty is a sovereign accord - not an administrative mechanism, which is what Government is. The Treaty defines authority at a Hapu level and inherent within that, with the changing dynamic of how we live today, provides the practical basis of a higher sovereign authority, that of conjoined hapu and Crown authority. In today's context, this means that Parliament, a Crown administrative mechanism, MUST BE subordinated to the conjoined sovereign authority of the Treaty signatories. This is pivotal in shaping the lawful political structure of our nation.

It is essential that we recognise co-governance for what it is, the mechanism by which the Crown deflects the unlawful claim of its supreme, singular sovereign authority. By definition, co-governance is subordinate to the legislation that establishes it! This legislation is defined by Parliament, which is the Crown, as a singular entity! Calls by Māori for co-governance, rather than establishing Māori sovereignty, by definition, actually recognises and affirms the Crown's unlawful authority, as these calls for co-governance inherently must assume the Crown's superordinate authority to legislate, in the first place!

By not understanding the meaning of sovereignty, we allow the Treaty to be reframed as an administrative agreement - thus allowing the Crown to "Honour the Treaty" by effecting administrative mechanisms, such as co-governance, Treaty settlements, Māori Health authorities etc, etc. To Honour the Treaty requires that the Crown and Māori recognise the Sovereign authority of the Treaty signatories, which by definition, must subordinate Parliament to such an authority!

This is the message that is missing from the activist rhetoric. This is what is missing from all protest against the establishment and this is why the establishment is able to reframe the rhetoric to reflect the sovereignty of the Crown - there is simply no clear and concise claim to Māori sovereignty that is grounded in the Sovereign authority enshrined in the Treaty, rather it tries to find a basis in administrative mechanisms of co-governance and a myriad of brown-washed initiatives and ideas, with the much vaunted Treaty Principles being, by far, the most insidious. There are NO principles inherent within the Treaty, other than - there is agreement or not! These principles are just another example of the smoke and mirrors that the Crown uses to deflect the unlawful nature of its [fraudulent] claim of singular, supreme sovereignty!

If activism is the mechanism to bring the Crown to the table, then activism must first understand the message. The message must be clear, concise and be grounded in the sovereign authority enshrined within the Treaty. The message must be:

1. The Treaty was a Sovereign accord by Māori and the Crown, which today must be recognised as a conjoined sovereign authority of the Treaty signatories.

2. The Sovereign authority of today's Treaty signatories, by definition, must be supreme and as such, all administrative mechanisms must be SUBORDINANT to that authority, INCLUDING, Parliament.

3. A sovereign body representing the Treaty signatories must be established, which will direct and control the administrative mechanisms that will govern the nation. These mechanisms, collectively, will form the basis of a Governing entity, which may be effected by the Parliamentary structure that is currently used, except that this Parliament will now recognise the sovereignty of the CONJOINED Sovereign entity, NOT JUST the Crown.

https://www.facebook.com/twowhare/photos/a.409890526054123/1390538257989340/

Well - He Puapua, the report on Māori determination, as expected is all p**s and wind. To be expected really - written by academics whose only real objective is to get published and blow air up the arses of other academics. Harsh words, one might say, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The report gets off to a bad start as it states, quite clearly, that it draws on the Matike Mai report. Anyone who has read this inflated exercise in academic self-preening knows that it conflates all manner of governance and sovereignty aspects, indeed proposes six separate possible governance models, all of which miss the mark. I despair, is there no one who understands sovereignty in this country? Just to lay out for those who might be new to this page - Sovereignty is to give the collective group the authority to control the individual. This is a big deal - it is the voluntary cession of autonomy to the collective so that all might benefit from the synergies of harmonious cohabitation. The nub of this is that this is a contract with a quid pro quo...I give up my autonomy and the collective group ensure my welfare. Quite easy to understand, however, what is being missed by everyone, it would appear, is that a contract is an authoritative structure in that the parties agreeing the contract are subordinate to the collective agreement that forms the contract...in other words, we each agree to be bound by the terms and conditions that we agree in the contract.

Let us now shape the entities to this contract in terms of Māori and Colonial settlers. The Settlers, represented by the Queen and Māori, represented by the Hapu Chiefs, were the contracting entities and the Treaty was the sovereign contract, that when agreed, became the super-ordinate contract - representing the collective authority of all the contracted parties. Thus, by definition, all the individual Māori chiefs and the Queen, individually are subordinate to the collective authority of the Treaty signatories. Thus the sovereign entity is a conjoined authority - which is what has been missing since 1840. Given that Parliament is an administrative function to effect the sovereigns rule, again by definition, this function MUST be subordinate to the sovereign. Nothing in the Matike Mai or He Puapua illustrate or consider this most basic fundamental of sovereignty - that the administrative function - Parliament - is subordinate to the sovereign. Indeed, both consider that Parliament is itself sovereign - the continuance of the rejection of Maori sovereignty, which Hobson unlawfully claimed to be the case in May 1840 - i.e. The lie that Māori ceded sovereignty to the Queen [representing the British Parliament, known as the Crown]

So here we have another report, another manipulation and continuance of the unilateral claim of the "Crown", that Parliament is sovereign and that Māori are subordinate to this unlawful authority. This can only be rectified by establishing an upper house that is the definitive sovereign authority - an upper house that directly represents the Treaty signatories - both Māori and the Crown together. We do not need to wait twenty years for this - it can be done today - if only there was someone to hold the Government's feet to the fire.

One might think that He Puapua does identify some form of "Treaty based upper House", but it does not do so with the subordination of Parliament in mind, rather it reflects a co-governance model in some aspects and separate governance in others, traditional Māori land for instance. This is, of course ridiculous and ignores the sovereign hierarchy, which is supreme. The rule of the supreme, conjoined sovereign is equal and the same for all - the essence of sovereignty. Every single person must be treated exactly the same - else there is no quid pro quo. This is the issue missed by Māori and Pakeha alike. If there are disadvantaged people, this must be addressed at the administrative level - NOT the sovereign level. To address the historical and contemporary issues would take another significant post - but suffice to say, when we correctly address sovereignty - then the landscape changes dramatically.

First and foremost we kick ownership of resource into touch, especially land. Westminster exists only to establish and maintain "property", i.e. the expropriation of resource from the collective. This is fundamentally wrong as sovereignty is our individual and voluntary acceptance that the collective exists only in so far as it effects the GUARDIANSHIP of resources, on our behalf. By definition, individual ownership removes the collective guardianship of resource, at the expense of the collective.

A proper sovereign model neatly addresses the question of who owns the land, seabed, foreshore, water etc - answer no one! But, who administers the land - the sovereign does, on our behalf. The use of the land then becomes a matter of administration over our life time - a sliding window of individual use, that is extinguished as each of us dies. That specific hapu might have administrative control over tracks of land is easily managed - but always under the authority of the sovereign - that is, the people's representative! Similarly, the foreshore becomes the "sovereign's Chain" - essentially the collective right of all people to use.

It is time that we challenge these academics on their institutionalised ignorance of sovereignty and also educated everyone on the real structure and meaning of sovereignty - simply, that the Treaty, being a sovereign agreement binds two nations together and gives the signatories of the Treaty the authority to govern and administer this nation for the benefit of us all!

02/06/2023

Money, money, money - it must be honey - in a rich man's world!
..and the rich man = the Trading Banks...and the reason is that the Banks control the money supply and conjure up money out of thin air and pour it into the economy by inflating asset prices - principally housing and real estate. It is a travesty that homes cost an extraordinary amount and the cost of living is driven sky high - all because it is the banks that control our economy - all in plain sight of the politicians and yet they say they are powerless to do anything - absolving any responsibility by kicking that hand gr***de onto the Reserve Bank, who themselves have say that their only tool is the OCR, even when they know that this tool is ineffective. That is right, they wreck the lives of millions just because they have not the intellect to take control of the monetary system and resolve the economic crisis.
..but do not take my word, read the bulletin from the Reserve Bank themselves: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/hub/publications/bulletin/2023/rbb-2023-86-01

"...The vast majority of money in circulation is created by commercial banks, through the process of bank lending. The Reserve Bank has direct control over the settlement cash level, but this only has an indirect influence on the quantity of broad money in the economy, and is not particularly relevant for the transmission of monetary policy under the current framework. "

That is correct - the Reserve Bank admits that the it only has direct control over the settlement cash level, the amount of cash that the Banks must hold with the Reserve Bank that is used to settle cash flows at the end of each trading day. The OCR is the interest that is paid on these bank accounts, or charged if the Trading Bank needs to lend from the Reserve bank to make settlement. The OCR is not relevant to any other Bank accounts in the real world. Not only is the OCR only relevant to these accounts, which is only a tiny fraction of the money circulating in the economy, but in reality it only really influences the fraction of a fraction that is used to support lending from banks for settlement.

The OCR is not fit-for-purpose as a tool to manage the flow or availability of money as it is like a person swimming, trying to push against a ship! But because of politically indoctrinated neo-liberal economic dogma - our politicians stand on the sidelines while our economy is r***d by the Banks. The travesty is that all Political parties are equally to blame - all indoctrinated and therefore helpless in the face of this neo-liberal monolith!!

24/05/2022

Well - He Puapua, the report on Māori determination, as expected is all p**s and wind. To be expected really - written by academics whose only real objective is to get published and blow air up the arses of other academics. Harsh words, one might say, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The report gets off to a bad start as it states, quite clearly, that it draws on the Matike Mai report. Anyone who has read this inflated exercise in academic self-preening knows that it conflates all manner of governance and sovereignty aspects, indeed proposes six separate possible governance models, all of which miss the mark. I despair, is there no one who understands sovereignty in this country? Just to lay out for those who might be new to this page - Sovereignty is to give the collective group the authority to control the individual. This is a big deal - it is the voluntary cession of autonomy to the collective so that all might benefit from the synergies of harmonious cohabitation. The nub of this is that this is a contract with a quid pro quo...I give up my autonomy and the collective group ensure my welfare. Quite easy to understand, however, what is being missed by everyone, it would appear, is that a contract is an authoritative structure in that the parties agreeing the contract are subordinate to the collective agreement that forms the contract...in other words, we each agree to be bound by the terms and conditions that we agree in the contract.

Let us now shape the entities to this contract in terms of Māori and Colonial settlers. The Settlers, represented by the Queen and Māori, represented by the Hapu Chiefs, were the contracting entities and the Treaty was the sovereign contract, that when agreed, became the super-ordinate contract - representing the collective authority of all the contracted parties. Thus, by definition, all the individual Māori chiefs and the Queen, individually are subordinate to the collective authority of the Treaty signatories. Thus the sovereign entity is a conjoined authority - which is what has been missing since 1840. Given that Parliament is an administrative function to effect the sovereigns rule, again by definition, this function MUST be subordinate to the sovereign. Nothing in the Matike Mai or He Puapua illustrate or consider this most basic fundamental of sovereignty - that the administrative function - Parliament - is subordinate to the sovereign. Indeed, both consider that Parliament is itself sovereign - the continuance of the rejection of Maori sovereignty, which Hobson unlawfully claimed to be the case in May 1840 - i.e. The lie that Māori ceded sovereignty to the Queen [representing the British Parliament, known as the Crown]

So here we have another report, another manipulation and continuance of the unilateral claim of the "Crown", that Parliament is sovereign and that Māori are subordinate to this unlawful authority. This can only be rectified by establishing an upper house that is the definitive sovereign authority - an upper house that directly represents the Treaty signatories - both Māori and the Crown together. We do not need to wait twenty years for this - it can be done today - if only there was someone to hold the Government's feet to the fire.

One might think that He Puapua does identify some form of "Treaty based upper House", but it does not do so with the subordination of Parliament in mind, rather it reflects a co-governance model in some aspects and separate governance in others, traditional Māori land for instance. This is, of course ridiculous and ignores the sovereign hierarchy, which is supreme. The rule of the supreme, conjoined sovereign is equal and the same for all - the essence of sovereignty. Every single person must be treated exactly the same - else there is no quid pro quo. This is the issue missed by Māori and Pakeha alike. If there are disadvantaged people, this must be addressed at the administrative level - NOT the sovereign level. To address the historical and contemporary issues would take another significant post - but suffice to say, when we correctly address sovereignty - then the landscape changes dramatically.

First and foremost we kick ownership of resource into touch, especially land. Westminster exists only to establish and maintain "property", i.e. the expropriation of resource from the collective. This is fundamentally wrong as sovereignty is our individual and voluntary acceptance that the collective exists only in so far as it effects the GUARDIANSHIP of resources, on our behalf. By definition, individual ownership removes the collective guardianship of resource, at the expense of the collective.

A proper sovereign model neatly addresses the question of who owns the land, seabed, foreshore, water etc - answer no one! But, who administers the land - the sovereign does, on our behalf. The use of the land then becomes a matter of administration over our life time - a sliding window of individual use, that is extinguished as each of us dies. That specific hapu might have administrative control over tracks of land is easily managed - but always under the authority of the sovereign - that is, the people's representative! Similarly, the foreshore becomes the "sovereign's Chain" - essentially the collective right of all people to use.

It is time that we challenge these academics on their institutionalised ignorance of sovereignty and also educated everyone on the real structure and meaning of sovereignty - simply, that the Treaty, being a sovereign agreement binds two nations together and gives the signatories of the Treaty the authority to govern and administer this nation for the benefit of us all!

01/05/2021

Finally - a sane voice in our academia - ‘Obscene’ housing Ponzi driven by banks’ greed

The Reserve Bank is laying out its plans to stimulate the economy while reining in housing prices. Sidestepping a debt-to-income limit would amount to a poisoned chalice for first-time buyers as they assume massive mortgages and will be the first to fall into negative equity when house prices inevitably ease.

The Government’s new housing policies mark a turning point in New Zealand’s speculation-driven housing markets. All recent homebuyers, investors and owner-occupants alike, and their lenders innately share an underlying hope that the property they just paid too much for will be even more over-valued in the future.

Of these, investors will be the first to regret they gambled on the continuation of the housing Ponzi.

The Reserve Bank is laying out its plans to stimulate the economy while reining in housing prices, but it's a poisoned chalice for first-time buyers as they assume massive mortgages.

06/03/2021

The Housing Market crisis is only a crisis because the Government continues to effect a neo-liberal economic model. This is flat-earth economics personified, aided and abetted by the plethora of economic pundits, academics and media alike.
This crisis can be easily managed if there was anyone in Government, and I include the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who actually understood the fundamentals of economics - i.e. the money supply must be finite and directly controlled, rather than the current model which is to abrogate control of the money supply to banks and the pretense of the OCR.
If we are to actually make a difference, we must adopt sovereign control of our money supply. Although slightly different crisis, GFC rather than COVID - the principles remain the same https://www.positivemoney.org.nz/how-to-waste-445.../
Today, the Reserve Bank of NZ either creates money to inject into the financial markets or leaves banks to create the money willy-nilly. The results we can see in the constrained spending in public service, a massive economic crisis juxtaposed against a booming stock market and run away housing inflation.
The elephant in the room is sitting in front of us - please help address it

Petitions are addressed to the House of Representatives and ask that the House do something about a policy or law, or put right a local or private concern.

05/09/2020

One of the most important posts regarding Climate Change.
https://www.patreon.com/ProfSteveKeen/posts?filters[tag]=Climate%20Change
This is why any Political Party that adheres to neo-classical economics [National, Labour, Greens, NZ First, ACT– in fact, all of them] are a danger to our nation and society in general.
Please pass this onto as many of your friends and acquaintances that might be interested in such things.
Abstract
Forecasts by economists of the economic damage from climate change have been notably sanguine, compared to warnings by scientists about damage to the biosphere. This is because economists made their own predictions of damages, using three spurious methods: assuming that about 90% of GDP will be unaffected by climate change, because it happens indoors; using the relationship between temperature and GDP today as a proxy for the impact of global warming over time; and using surveys that diluted extreme warnings from scientists with optimistic expectations from economists. Correcting for these errors makes it feasible that the economic damages from climate change are at least an order of magnitude worse than forecast by economists, and may be so great as to threaten the survival of human civilization.

(2020). The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change. Globalizations. Ahead of Print.

19/04/2020

COVID-19 has decimated our economy, the lively hood of tens of thousands - probably hundreds of thousands. Politics aside, we are fortunate to have Jacinda at the helm - she has done a sterling job. Unfortunately she has battled with one hand tied behind her back. Simply put, the neo-liberal economic framework limits the ongoing response to COVID-19 and will constrain how we address the fall-out. Given that to move away from such a model requires that the politicians, media, academics and economists who have steered this ship for the last 45 years would need to own up to their culpability - I fear nothing will change - ego is a powerful mechanism to keep up the sham - all have a vested interest in seeing the Emperors New Clothes!

Are there any out there who would have this otherwise - are there any who believe that it is time to give a voice to the people and hold this Government - along with the many before it - to account and mount a Political Challenge to the abrogation of our economic and national sovereignty - or must we continue to accept our subjugation to the establishment?

28/04/2018

The Crown has made its final submission to the Waitangi Tribunal - as always a cynical rewriting of history. It will not go unchallenged - here is the summary of a response to this submission:

The changing relationship between Te Raki Māori and the Crown, following the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, reflects contrasting expectations of what Te Tiriti o Waitangi required of both parties . Stage 1 of this inquiry involved the discussion of Te Whakaminenga, He Whakaputanga, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Those matters fundamentally underpin the subsequent interaction between the Crown and Te Raki Māori. Stage 2 of this inquiry is to determine to what extent did the Crown recognise and provide for the exercise of tino rangatiratanga through institutions and entities, practices and policies and how did the practical application of kāwanatanga in the Te Raki inquiry region impact upon tino rangatiratanga?

To paraphrase this remit, did the Crown recognise the sovereign authority of Māori, did the Crown exercise the sovereign obligations inherent within its relationship with Māori and did the Crown’s actions adversely affect the lives of Māori and especially Northern Māori, in this case?

Does the Crown recognise the sovereign authority of Māori? Quite clearly it has never done so and still does not today. The Crown holds a sovereign position in this country, however it does not do so by dint of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, rather its sovereign claim is a result of invasion and subjugation of Māori. The Crown can not claim otherwise, having consistently violated Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the simple sovereign accord where Māori extended an invitation for the Queen [Crown] to exercise her sovereignty throughout the length and breadth of Aotearoa. The Crown has always sought to establish and maintain its singular sovereign supremacy, rewriting history in order to do so, effecting an institutional propaganda programme, reaching from the schooling of our children through to legislation in Parliament. This propaganda programme has been so effective that it is now the institutional orthodoxy, unquestioned by academia, media, the Courts and the public. In the face of this entrenched orthodoxy, it has been left to the courts to seek the vestiges of justice for Māori, however in doing so, the courts have established the “treaty principles” which have only obfuscated the meaning and essence of the treaty, which ironically has allowed the Crown to perpetuate their unlawful sovereign claim under the rhetoric of “honouring the treaty”, an offensive and cynical claim in the face of the Crowns intransigent denial of Māori sovereign authority, that which is enshrined within Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In order to consider the claimants evidence, surely it is encumbent on the Court to clearly articulate the essence of the Treaty, being a simple sovereign accord, and establish whether this accord is still in effect today. Does the Crown have a supreme sovereign authority where Māori are subordinate to that authority, or is it that Māori have an equal sovereign status, an authority that is equal to that of the Crown? If the Crown claims a supreme authority then it must stop all reference to the treaty, as the treaty must surely be void in the face of such an unlawful claim. If the Crown claims that the treaty is in effect and that Māori are of equal standing, then this must, by definition, subordinate Parliament to the authority of Māori, together with the Crown. If this is the case then all legislation that is in effect today must be considered to be unlawfully constituted until such time as Parliament is directed by a sovereign council, of Māori together with the Crown, to retrospectively pass such legislation. This goes to the very heart of this inquiry, as this Court has been established on a remit from the Crown and this remit can only be effected when the legal authority of the Crown is lawfully established.

Has the Crown exercised its sovereign obligations to Māori, inherent within its relationship established within Te Tiriti of Waitangi? Firstly, to recap on what these sovereign obligations are. The sovereign’s obligation is that in return for the authority vested in it by the people, the authority to make and effect laws, the sovereign must provide equal opportunity for all the people to secure their autonomous rights for security, food, clothing, good health and a warm dry home in an inclusive and peaceful community. This is the social contract that is the essence of sovereignty, a social contract that above all, has the welfare of all those who recognise the sovereign’s authority. By any measure, the Crown has failed to meet its most fundamental obligations, however even more troubling, is that the Crown has unlawfully persecuted its subjects, practising seditious acts by the unlawful killing of its subjects, the confiscation of lands, resources and treasures and today still perpetrates the denigration of Māori through its continued subjugation of Māori’s rightful sovereign authority. That the Crown has effected these crimes against humanity, there can be no doubt, as no lessor person than the Queen herself has admitted as much and this very Court has already addressed many instances where these crimes have been writ large, manifest in the reparations to Māori already made to date.

However, what has not been acknowledged, by any and certainly not by the Crown, is the greater crime of dishonouring the treaty, the treasonous refusal to recognise and accept the sovereign authority of Māori. Surely, before any obligations it has to the people, in entering into a sovereign accord with another nation, the Crown has a higher obligation to recognise this solemn and binding contract between the two nations and only within this sovereign framework can it then meet its obligations to not only the subjects of the Crown, but to any who would subject themselves to the authority of this sovereign accord.

Again, it would seem encumbent on this Court to clearly identify the Crowns insistent denial of Māori sovereign authority and by doing so that the Crown is failing to meet its sovereign obligation to its treaty partner and by extension to both peoples, Māori and Tauiwi. It must be articulated that the Crown has consistently sought a position of power over the people, never willing to subordinate its instrument of power to the sovereign authority of Māori and in doing so invalidates it legal basis, rendering unlawful its physical manifestation of power, the constabulary, the Courts and prisons that carry out its unbridled and unlawful orders in the continual subjugation of Māori. In considering the claim for reparation for the crimes committed against the claimant, surely the Crown must be instructed to desist from this seditious behaviour so that the reparations for the humanitarian crimes can be considered unencumbered by this prevalent institutional bias and further that the greatest crime of all, the rejection of Māori sovereign authority, can be acknowledged for the court of public opinion to make judgement.

Has the Crown’s actions adversely affected the lives of Māori and especially Northern Māori, is the last matter in question. Quite clearly the Crown’s intransigent, insistent and vociferous rejection of Māori sovereign authority has had a huge effect on Māori and to a lesser extent, all the people of New Zealand. The most debilitating of these effects, far greater than the material effects of the theft of treasures from Māori, has been the subjugation of a people, deprived of their self-esteem, their “mana”, their autonomous right to recognise their own sovereign status. The effects are evident in the statistics that have Māori over represented in every negative social metric, the prison population, under achievement in school, in psychiatric wards, in hospitals, in domestic violence and in cars that serve as homes. Such statistics are all too familiar wherever nations have been subjugated to the yoke of an oppressor.

To consider the impact of the Crown’s ministrations and unlawful acts, the Court must be cognisant of the subjugation of a sovereign people, a crime of such magnitude that it has crossed eight generations. What is even more abhorrent, is that this crime is institutionalised and practised on a daily basis, forming the fabric of institutional racism and prejudice against Māori that no amount of “treaty settlements”, financial restitution or patronising platitudes can ever expunge. Reparation for the seditious and egregious crimes committed by the Crown must extend beyond the award of financial restitution to that of clearly and without reservation recognising the sovereign authority of Māori and elevate Māori to their rightful sovereign status, that of “First Nation”, and their sovereign[s] to be the Sovereign entity of the people of this nation, Aotearoa. Whether the Crown is also recognised as joint sovereign of this nation will depend entirely on the Crown’s choice to “honour the treaty” in the recognition of Māori Sovereign authority enshrined within Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

If Te Tiriti o Waitangi is truly the foundation of this nation, as both the Crown and Government claim, then all New Zealanders must be cognisant of the intent of those who agreed the sovereign accord between the two sovereign peoples. Regardless of the machinations from 1840 until today, surely the treaty was the hope of both peoples to establish a sovereign framework that cared for all the people, equitably without favour to any, to provide the anchor for inclusive policies of state, to reconcile past injustices and provide the foundation of a shared culture in a fledgling relationship. In such a framework, Māori extended an invitation to the British settlers to be one people, Tauiwi – together with Māori the sovereign people of New Zealand, Tangata Whenua.