Apr 25, 2012

On my disappointment with Closeup

So last night I was on Closeup in one of those primitive “race debates” with John Ansell and Hone Harawira. I agreed to go on the show under the impression we were going to talk politics – how naïve is that.

With John Ansell in the room, I should’ve realised the discussion was never going to be informative and reasoned, of course that was never the intention. The intention appeared to be to get John Ansell and Hone Harawira together, play them off against each other and then have me pipe up occasionally as the token “moderate” or “young person”. Of the panels I’ve done, last night’s was the most venal. It achieved nothing other than to provide John Ansell with a platform to parrot his flawed and offensive views on Maori and New Zealand society.

I was, more than anything, stunned and confused with what was said last night and, I think understandably, angry with Mark Sainsbury’s unwillingness to shift the conversation towards reason, as opposed hyperbole, misrepresentations and lies which is where Sainsbury directed the discussion.

I guess it teaches me a lesson – a lesson not to be so naïve and to also prepare accordingly when in the same room as John Ansell or any other like minds. 

For an excellent discussion on Ansell and last night see this from Scott Hamilton at Reading the Maps.


  1. John Ansell came across loud and clear as a racist. I am Pakeha and cringed at some of the statements he made. The one about Maori taking responsibility for things such as education particularly annoyed me, especially when the Pakeha system won't allow Maori to do just that. It is patently obvious that Maori fare better education wise when amongst their own people, but people like John Ansell immediately label this as an aparteid system. I disagree.

  2. John Ansell has really gone off the rails in the last few years.

    I mean, I've never been a supporter or believer of his ideas, but he was at least a fairly rational seeming person. Now he seems to be living in an alternative reality.

    I wonder if, after the success of the Iwi/Kiwi billboards, he just started reading his own press and believing he is some kind of guru to whom the regular rules don't apply.

  3. Morgan, I just wanted to say kia kaha. You have every right to feel disappointed with the intentions of those at Close Up who put together the story because, as you have rightfully said,it achieved nothing. I thought you handled yourself well and made very insightful comments (I particularly enjoyed the points about extreme beliefs and power). I also enjoy your blog - I find it objective, thoughtful and well-presented.
    Meanwhile, as James Ihaka commented on one of your previous post I have resigned from the Waikato Times but your blog has inspired me to start my own blog following the Close Up debate. I miss writing and I am obviously passionate about these issues and so the blog will endeavour to explore the represenation of Maori in New Zealand's media. So I just wanted say that you are doing a really good job with this blog and thank you for inspiring me because, even if nobody reads my blog, it is a way to write about an area that I am passionate about. I look forward to reading your next post.

    1. Kia ora Karla, thanks for your encouragement. I'm glad you're joining the Maori blogosphere - I'm looking forward to your writings. We need more articulate and intelligent Maori writing on issues that affect us. I'll link to your blog tomorrow. Good luck with your new beginnings. Nga mihinui, Morgan.

  4. I must say I am confused about your comment where you say Ansell has "flawed and offensive views on Maori". What I heard from Ansell seemed straight up, he talked of a colourblind state as opposed to separatism. Dont we all want a race free NZ? It makes me wonder who has the flawed and offensive views Morgan.

    Of course, if your aim is to simply slur Ansells character because he is not Maori just to prop up an already bloated grievance industry then try harder for better argument.

    1. As one example of an offensive view, while statement actually, from Ansell was his comment that Maori are working to create an "apartheid Aotearoa". This is not only a fantasy, but an offensive one at that. Maori are working to achieve equality with Pakeha, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

      When the government begins reserving buses, park benches and suburbs for Maori and Pakeha, when the government legislates for racial segregation, when the state engages in assassinations of people of the wrong colour, then we can start talking about an apartheid state. Not only was Ansell's comments offensive to right thinking New Zealanders, they were offensive and disrespectful to South Africans too.

      As an outside example of Ansell's rather warped views, remember that he is on the record as doubting whether women are responsible voters.

    2. Here's a couple of quotes from Ansell that fit the description "flawed and offensive views on Maori"
      "There is a volcano of rage on the street about the Maorification of Everything. Meanwhile Key panders to Maori. Every other party panders to Maori . . . Does ACT want to be the courageous general rallying his men to fight a war for civilisation?"

      “When the white man opens the door and says come in and rape us, of course, if you’ve got any sort of business like sense you’ll go for whatever you can get.”

      Or any of his opening statement about the savagery of the Maori people. No one needs to slur Ansell's character - the guy is absolutely crazy (e.g. the National party are conspiring to create an animist, racist and communist constitution!)

    3. Morgan, lets start with the Maori seats, Maori TV, whanau ora, cultural safety in health and education, customary fishing privilege, annual fishing quota, sealords and treelords deal even though fishing and forestry arent even mentioned in article two of the treaty, Auckland maori stat board, maori seats on councils, repeat full and final ngai tahu/Tainui/taranaki settlements with no basis in fact under the treaty, co management rights...I could go on but all of these represent privilege.

      My point to you here is not an anti Maori one but an anti separatist/apartheid one, this is dividing New Zealand.

      If all of the above privileges and planks of separatism disappeared, and they would if we had a government with balls and brains, none of that going would stop Maori being Maori in their own right and thriving culturally.

      You seem a bright young Kiwi, part Maori by accident at birth, no one wants to stop you being both.

      But we must dissolve the entitlement mentality, fictional grievance resentment and the threat of anarchy down the line.

      You must know you cannot gift privilege to one race or culture over another and call that equality.

      All a government can do is give everyone an equal opportunity and an equal say in decisions that effect their lives. From there it is up to them.

      No Maori in NZ 2012 has any less opportunity or say than anyone else. One man one vote.

    4. First of all, the Treaty does include forestry and fishery guarantees in article two. What you quote does not represent privilege, they represent mechanisms to help bring Maori up to and on to a level footing with Pakeha NZders. How can Maori be priviledged when we are more likely to die sooner, more likely to suffer illness, more likely to be imprisoned and imprisoned longer than our Pakeha counterparts for the same crime, more likely to drop-out of school, more likely to be unemployed and so and so on. That does not paint a picture of privilege, it screams of under privilege.

      None of what you quote is dividing NZ. I don't recall the sky falling in and race wars when Maori TV started broadcasting. If anything, after years and years of these so called "apartheid" mechanisms, race relations in NZ are better than they were at the beginning of the Maori renaissance.

      Most Maori have less opportunity than Pakeha. A Maori child born to poor parents in a rural town will not have the opportunity of, say, a plunket nurse, regular check-ups at the local GP. The child won't have the chance to go to a high decile, well resourced school - unlike a Pakeha child on the North Shore - the Maori child will not have access to the opportunities that come in a city (employment opportunities etc), more than often that child wouldn't know how to fit in in a Pakeha environment restricting their opportunities even more. I could go on.

    5. Where in "Te Tiriti O Waitangi" does it mention forestry and fishery guarantees? It doesnt anywhere.

      Every dollar funding a Maori specific project or settlement comes from the pockets of every Kiwi taxpayer. Of course you will say it is fair and just being on the recieving end, who wouldnt, but the truth is that these handouts represent privilege (simply for being part Maori) that no other Kiwi gets through birth, that is not equality. It is separatism, like it or not.

      Every poor Maori has the same opportunity in life as every poor pakeha, if they choose to avail themselves of it. If not whose fault is that?

      Where Maori live relative to social services is not the fault of pakeha, many pakeha are disadvantaged by remote locations as well.

      Morgan, this is 2012 not 1840. Most Maori kids want an iPad like most pakeha kids. At some point this whole entitlement grievance thing has to end.

      Dont you agree?

    6. Quote from article 2 of the english text:

      Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates "Forests" "Fisheries"

      That funding also comes from Maori taxpayers. Or, in your world, do Maori not pay tax?

      The mechanisms mentioned do not represent nor confer privilege. If they did, then Maori would be in equal employment, have equal life expectancy, equal health stats and so on. You cannot sustain accusations of privilege where all of the objective evidence points towards under privilege.

      I suspect we will never agree on anything. I doubt you will be brought around to my view, and I will never be brought around to yours.

    7. Morgan,

      There is only one Te Tiriti O Waitangi. It was signed on Feb 6 and throughout NZ during 1840. It is our "Treaty" and it is in Maori.

      Below is what our treaty actually says word-for- word in English, because as it was translated from this english text below into the Maori text below it. Check it word-for-word.

      The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & 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 and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive right of purchasing such land as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon between them and the persons appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

      Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona

    8. Dead right Ross. The 1975 invention into law fails to reflect the one rule for all intention of Q Victoria as you have stated. David Lange had the courage to admit it was a sham that had divided and would continue to divide until NO was heard above the clamour of crazy claims.

  5. Ansell and Harawira...two racists together. Was never going to be pretty.

    1. ONE RULE FOR ALL doesn't sound very racist

  6. Let's face it, Ansell is a lacertilian shape shifter. Reptilian conspiracy theories aside...I wish I could say that I doubt anyone takes Ansell seriously. But sadly, there will be people who agree with the racist, delusional vitriol that he spouts.

    According to Ansell, "There is a volcano of rage on the street about the Maorification of Everything." Don't you love how the word "everything" is capitalized in a desperate attempt to add credibility to Ansell's insane views? Where exactly is this Maorification? It certainly isn't on the North Shore of Auckland where I live. You can't see a Maori for miles, here. And the only volcano I can see is Rangitoto.

    This is how Ansell operates: He spews hate speech and alternative universe nutjob theories about Maori being a privileged group. When anyone tries to counter this nonsense with facts about poor Maori outcomes across various social and economic indicators, Ansell says that such outcomes are the fault of Maori themselves. In saying that, he is tacitly admitting that in fact Maori are not the privileged group he disingenuously pretended they were in the first place. But hey, let's not spoil Ansell's hate mongering fun by pointing out that giant shape shifting elephant in the room.

  7. Close Up only exists to extract money from advertisers. Sainsbury's job is to highlight the extreme and controversial in an effort to increase the number of eyeballs watching the screen. Expect no reasoned debate on the program.

    If I were you, I wouldn't bother with it.

  8. Morgan don’t be disappointed in that Interview at all –you are the most articulate and impressive Maori speaker I have seen on Television. New Zealand has a strong Racist underbelly and Anglo New Zealanders are under some impression their Citizenship as a New Zealand Citizen is somehow impuned because of Maori Nationalism. If anything Mark Sainsbury has helped you find your true calling. When Mark Sainsbury commented on the Maori Radicals and you instantly shut him down with “no they have no power”. I laughed so loud it was perfect reply and when you called John Ansell Right Wing that rubbed him up the wrong way. Morgan please don’t be disappointed by any means Hone and John didn’t win that debate you did it with style and finesse. Excellent work I loved that Interview and I have started reading your Blog.

    1. How can it be right wing to desire Equality. Let's work together to achieve it.

  9. Tena koe Morgan - just wanted to reiterate the comments above to say don't be too disappointed. The fact that you managed to keep your composure perfectly while offering reasoned and coherent comments -- with John Ansell going off the deep end right next to you -- is incredible. I had to bite my tongue each time John Ansell spoke.

    As much as your frustration with being cast as 'the token “moderate” or “young person”' is understandable, thank goodness there are people like you willing to step up and speak up on these occasions.

    Nga mihi, Julia

  10. Morgan,
    Saintsbury and CloseUp are toxic territory.
    Saintsbury is the tout who panders to the advertisers ("clients") of the brothel that is TV1.
    You got prostituted by TV1, via Saintsbury.

    TV1 sells advertising space, nothing else.

    1. Morgan. You ask the retorical question as to whether Maori pay tax. Of course they do but it is a racist tax. As you would be indutably aware Maori buisnesses pay at a rate of 19.5% whereas non-Maori are mandated to pay 28%. This is both outrageous and racist. Give me some examples from darkest Africa where such a racist tax system is in effect.The country is in the crap over the deficit and it would therefore be appropriate that everyone paid their fair share and at a universal rate. After all, if Maori buisnesses paid at the same rate then we could bridge the current deficit, and at the same time provide more funding for our police,prisons and welfare agencies--all of whom have Maori as their major clients.

  11. Morgan, you weren't talking like this in the pleasant two hour conversation we shared in the taxi and plane.

    I challenge you to answer the question of where in Te Tiriti it mentions forests and fisheries.

    Have you heard of Hobson's final draft, an almost perfect match for Te Tiriti - also with no forests or fisheries?

    Do you know what 'taonga' meant in 1840?

    "Property procured by the spear, etc."

    No mention of abstract concepts like language or the mauri of the river or the electromagnetic spectrum - or whatever else future generations might one day take a shine to.

    The inflation of 'taonga' is the sort of exaggeration that annoys your Pakeha countrymen.

    Morgan, you are an achiever. You have your iPhone and your iPad. You had loving parents and a good education.

    Not all Maori people have that.

    But why is that my fault? Why do I have to pay money to Maori when billions in transfers has made no difference to those stats you like to quote?

    Be honest and admit that Maori are immeasurably better off today than they were when they were 42 cannibal communist dictatorships.

    Like it or not, the British did not destroy Maori, they saved Maori.

    Read the transcript of the Kohimarama Conference in 1860. Read what those chiefs said about British Christianity and British law.

    Those guys weren't too proud to express gratitude. Not so today.

    I wouldn't be saying any of this stuff if Maori weren't trying to diminish my forebears and blaming them for their own poor choices.

    You demand that Maori must be equal with Pakeha in the social statistics. Why?

    Every nation in history has its turn at being dominated.

    The Britons were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the Anglo-Saxons by the French, the French by the Germans, and the Germans by the Allies.

    And guess what? They all ate their share of humble pie, and bounced back.

    Maori were hammered by European diseases, but blessed with European medicines.

    They lost 2000 people in the Sovereignty Wars, but 20-60,000 in the Musket Wars.

    Tribes had land confiscated (for rebellion), but were compensated up to five times. Elsewhere, rebels get shot.

    When will you people be satisfied? Answer: never.

    Your plan is to keep blaming the white man for all of your people's bad choices, because the chamber of Chamberlains we call parliament are weak-kneed appeasers who would rather submit to your emotional blackmail than be called a nasty name (racist).

    Look, all peoples were once brutal. The British used to hang, draw and quarter criminals. They used to keep slaves, burn witches, chop ladies' heads off.

    The only difference between my ancestors and your Maori ancestors is that your guys, being stuck out here on an island, were a few generations behind.

    So why would you expect to have caught up in only - what - four generations?

    Some Maori - like you Morgan - have well and truly caught up, if not rocketed ahead. Others are still into the violence.

    And that will only change when attitudes change.

    You can hate me all you like, but you know that's true.

    I'm married to a Taiwanese. No race in New Zealand has suffered as much racial prejudice as the Chinese.

    But they don't moan about it. They put their heads down and work. They beat the white man at his own game. You guys could do the same.

    It seems to me Maori have very poor leaders these days. Once they had dignified role models like Pomare, Buck, Carroll and Ngata.

    Now they're stuck with racist wide boys like Harawira and Jackson.

    I hope you'll read Sir Apirana Ngata's explanation of the Treaty some time.

    I hope you will consider what I'm saying and not just trot out the usual boring abuse.

    1. “I challenge you to answer the question of where in Te Tiriti it mentions forests and fisheries”.

      Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, the same treaty that was signed in 1840 and the same treaty that is the foundation of our constitution, includes “Forests” and “Fisheries”. Have a look for yourself:


      Any claim that the Treaty does not include those words is untenable and unsupported by objective evidence. It is, in other words, a conspiracy theory. And a very bad one that.


      “Do you know what 'taonga' meant in 1840?”

      Excuse me, but you are not a scholar nor student of the Maori language, nor of Maori descent. Your “property procured by the spear definition” is absurd and, again, plain wrong. The word has always meant, roughly speaking, something of value or something valued whether the value is material, cultural and so on. A treasure is how the word is often translated. Rivers, lakes, mountains and so on are all taonga because they have value – both cultural and material. The same is true of the Maori language. It is a taonga because it is something of value and valued by Maori. Please do not try and bend the meaning of my language.


      “But why is that my fault? Why do I have to pay money to Maori when billions in transfers has made no difference to those stats you like to quote?”

      No one said it was your fault, and I doubt anyone ever will. It is definitely a question of common decency. I would not and do not begrudge my tax dollars going to those less fortunate, especially when those people are in an underprivileged situation as a result of over a century of economic injustice, institutional racism and, quite often, everyday racism.

      Furthermore, mechanisms like whanau ora have had a tangible effect on Maori. For example, Maori life expectancy has increased, however it remains well below the amount of time most Pakeha can expect to live. Why not continue with programs that are making a positive difference in people’s lives. Remember, these things are often not abstract and affect individuals and families profoundly.


      Be honest and admit that Maori are immeasurably better off today than they were when they were 42 cannibal communist dictatorships.

      You clearly know nothing about Maori society pre-European contact. Professing that you do is either a lie or wilful ignorance. As an aside, I find it funny how you can’t resist slurring Maori with the “cannibal communist” line. Rangatira and arikinui could not lead without consensus, it is Maori culture to question everything and find absolute consensus. One cannot, or could not I should say, lead unilaterally. The rangatira that did would often come off second best.

    2. ***For example, Maori life expectancy has increased, however it remains well below the amount of time most Pakeha can expect to live.***

      Men have significantly lower life expectancy than women. Is this due to institutional bias and discrimination against men?

    3. Morgan, if you are such a huge advocate of Whanau ora, why are you so anti the one party that is pushing for it?

  12. As a student of real NZ history based on actual contemporary documents and news articles, I know that everything John Ansell says about the contents of the actual signed Treaty is true. Morgan, it beats me how & why an apparently educated and articulate young part-Maori can choose to take on and promote the views held by the likes of Willie Jackson and the extended Harawira family in the face of reason and common sense. While you do, there is not much hope for social harmony in NZ.

    1. Hear hear. Let's take a vote - social harmony and one rule for all or the opposite and more of what the part maori trouble makers advocate.

  13. “I wouldn't be saying any of this stuff if Maori weren't trying to diminish my forebears and blaming them for their own poor choices.”

    Rubbish. No one’s trying to diminish your ancestors. If anything, you’re trying to diminish Maori ancestors by spreading misinformation. Maori identify the system as at fault, hence the constitutionally review, and to a lesser extent Maori blame the actions of successive governments. Never have a seen nor heard a Maori blame ordinary Pakeha.


    “You demand that Maori must be equal with Pakeha in the social statistics. Why?”

    Wow. Can you not see how morally bankrupt that comment is. It’s sad, really, that you think this way. It is common decency, humanity even, that demands an equal society where everyone gets a fair go and gets to stand on an equal footing. After all, equality leads to a more healthy society. Read the Spirit Level.


    “Every nation in history has its turn at being dominated.”

    And that is a justification how?


    “Tribes had land confiscated (for rebellion), but were compensated up to five times. Elsewhere, rebels get shot.”

    Point to the government records that prove this and then I’ll believe you because, to be frank, I think you’re lying.


    “Your plan is to keep blaming the white man for all of your people's bad choices, because the chamber of Chamberlains we call parliament are weak-kneed appeasers who would rather submit to your emotional blackmail than be called a nasty name (racist).”

    Keep on slurring, it’s getting your argument nowhere.


    “Some Maori - like you Morgan - have well and truly caught up, if not rocketed ahead. Others are still into the violence. And that will only change when attitudes change.”

    Attitude is one part of it. But can you not see how programs like, again, whanau ora are aimed at breaking the cycle of violence, the cycle of poverty and so on. Surely you can?


    I'm married to a Taiwanese. No race in New Zealand has suffered as much racial prejudice as the Chinese.

    I don’t want to diminish the awful racism the Chinese suffered, but I don’t think we can compare their struggle with the Maori struggle. The Chines are, firstly, not indigenous to Aotearoa. They didn’t have their lands, their economic base taken from them, they didn’t have to fight a war against an unjust government, they didn’t have to endure, essentially, 150 years of systematic racism.

  14. “It seems to me Maori have very poor leaders these days. Once they had dignified role models like Pomare, Buck, Carroll and Ngata.
    Now they're stuck with racist wide boys like Harawira and Jackson.”

    Hone Harawira and Willie Jackson reflect the feelings of the times. Impatience. Many Maori are impatient at the slow pace of progress and, incidentally, the roadblocks like yourself.

    I suspect we will never, ever reconcile our world views. I cannot believe the conspiracy theories that you pertuate, for example the claim that John Key is turning New Zealand into a “communist, animist and racist state” when that is contrary to all the evidence. Perhaps these things are happening in an alternate reality, but not here.

  15. Excellent response, John. Attitudes like Morgan's are sadly becoming entrenched even though true history proves them very wrong and misguided. I cannot understand why anyone wanting a Colourblind State could ever be lumbered with the criticisms against them that have been written in the blogs on this site. The biggest problem is that the critics have been taken in by the fraudulent Treaty created by Geoffery Palmer in 1986 and put into law. If they looked at the true Tiriti signed in 1840 they would realise how off-beam they have become. They are following something of recent invention and although it might be profitable for them to do this, it is causing another huge wrong for the rest of the people who are paying for a big fraud.

    There is absolutely no reason in this day and age why anyone, no matter of what heritage, can't achieve, given the will to do so. Just look at Asians and others many of whom don't speak English when they arrive here. In no time they are successful self-sufficient citizens. The theory that people of Maori descent are disadvantaged is also disproved because the biggest percentage of them are also good self-sufficient citizens but sadly many have moved off-shore to Australia to get away from all of this separatist nonsense. In my view, attitude, motivation and education are the key no matter what ethnic group you come from.

    1. It's actually quite sad that you're thick enough to buy such wild conspiracy theories. Keep living in that alternate reality of yours, we're better off without you in the real world.

  16. I didn’t see that coming I thought John Ansell was a Bald Redneck – he actually sound like he cares for Maoridom
    I would like to see a TV show Debate where John and Morgan both chew out New Zealand’s biggest Hurdle Our Race relations and the Treaty of Waitangi. Providing the host was unbiased and they didn’t cut each other off rudely. It would have to avoid negative comments like “Apartheid New Zealand” or “Zimbabwe of the South Pacific” But actually be informative and intelligent so the audience can be better educated from both perspectives. I have a feeling that Morgan would win the audience though is extremely articulate and really listens intently and comes back with the best replies.

    1. Kiaora Joe, a great idea and it could be done online without an audience. Do you have the goods Morgan? Morena

  17. Joe, I appreciate that comment very much. I think my eyes might be leaking a bit.

    Of course I care about Maoridom, but that's not my 'brand' so I don't expect that to stick.

    It is very difficult being critical about Maori when I am Pakeha. But what am I supposed to do? Maori people think it's fine to stand up for their forebears, and I'm just doing the same.

    Morgan, you're getting a bit arrogant. I've been studying Crown-Maori history from sun-up to sun-down for the past year. I don't need to have a certificate to understand the source documents I read.

    And one of those source documents is the 1820 Maori dictionary from Cambridge University whose linguistic consultant was none other than visiting Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika.

    It was Hongi Hika who defined 'taonga' as 'property procured by the spear, etc.'

    1820 was before 1840, was it not? That was the dictionary current when the Treaty was signed.

    If you want a second opinion, try the next dictionary, William Williams's, published in 1844.

    That defined 'taonga' as simply 'property'. No 'spear' this time.

    But as you no doubt know, 'tao' means (or at least meant) 'spear'.

    Could 'taonga' actually mean 'the spear'. No doubt an authentic Maori like yourself can advise a humble Pakeha on this one.

    I will post on my blog shortly photos of both those definitions, after which I will look forward to your apology.

    Because of my year of intensive study - and continuous advice from nine authors of over 30 books on Treaty matters, I think it would be unwise of you to underestimate my knowledge.

    One of the things I now know is that our history is a lot different to the version the state has brainwashed us with.

    That's why I'm calling phase 1 of my campaign for a Colourblind State 'Treatygate'. It's a real scandal. Stay tuned and I'll show you what I mean.

    As Joe has realised, I am not trying to denigrate Maori for the sheer fun of it.

    I'm trying to jolt you into taking off your eye patches and examining your own history - and your strategy for solving the problems which afflict the people you commendably care so deeply about.

    The difference between Left and Right in politics is simply the difference between the soft mother and the strong father.

    (Obviously I'm generalising for effect, since I would call Margaret Thatcher the 'strong father' type, and John Key the 'soft mother' type. But hopefully you get my drift.)

    Both the soft mother and strong father are equally loving, I hope we agree.

    But the soft mother's road is the easy road, since she remains popular - even though her 'appeasement' style of management is likely to produce spoilt brats.

    The path of the strong father, on the other hand, is much harder. He's the bad guy, the meanie, the one who won't let you have any more sweets, the pedant who forces you to do chores.

    Which parent is more effective?

    I say the strong father. That's why I'm on the right.

    That's why I want Maori to look inwards for their solutions, not outwards.

    (NB: My own mother was tougher on me than my father, and my wife is tougher on the kids than me. Just so you know I'm generalising - and yes, a little hypocritical!)

  18. Morgan, I went to the recent Treaty debate at Te Papa. One of the speakers was Associate Professor Nin Thomas from Auckland University.

    She shared the stage with Dame Claudia Orange and Dr John Burrows, co-chair of the Constitutional Advisory Panel.

    They were there to discuss the Constitutional Review.

    Nin Thomas's speech was full of communist rhetoric about how New Zealanders need to be 'reeducated'.

    Then she went on to paint her picture of the ideal New Zealand constitution.

    It was the Bolivian constitution, where private property rights are negligible, humans are equal with three-toed sloths and blades of grass, but some humans (indigenous ones) were more equal than others.

    As I'm sure you know, the Constitutional Advisory Panel, set up to reflect the views of New Zealanders back to the government, contains 5 Maori (representing 15% of the population), 5 Europeans (representing 68%), 1 Pacific person and 1 Asian.

    On top of that, all 5 Europeans have been hand-picked for their known pro-Maori sympathies.

    So what kind of a constitution do you think this committee is likely to support?

    You want us to believe that the Constitutional Review is some esoteric talkfest about nothing.


    The Constitutional Review is the means by which the Maori Party is planning to strip New Zealand of its democracy.

    Look at all the ways the chamber of Chamberlains have appeased Maori already.

    Billions in reparations for the wars of the 1860s. Where else in the world do the winners pay reparations to the losers?

    Only in the topsy-turvy appeasement capital of the world, New Zealand.

    A few years ago Key let Sharples sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Clark wouldn't do it, because she could see what it would mean. But Key didn't care. Key is for Key.

    Despite repeated requests, neither Key nor Sharples has been able to explain how a people who sailed here from the other side of the Pacific a few hundred years before the British can at the same time originate from here.

    Only in topsy-turvy Kiwiland could Maori be called indigenous.

    Anyone with a vestige of logic knows that you can't come from here and also come by canoe, but hey - it doesn't matter cos we're Maori and we are not subject to the laws of fairness or logic.

    Last year Key and Finlayson surrendered the beaches in exchange for Maori Party votes.

    Key's whole strategy has been to concede to Maori when he doesn't need them, in order to gain their support when he does.

    I used to work for Key. He doesn't give a damn about New Zealand. He's got his eye on a nice job at the UN.

    And what is more likely to impress that gang of socialist dictators than a constitution that enshrines the superiority of the indigenous people?

    But you carry on minimising the importance of the Constitutional Review and I'll keep on telling the truth.

  19. Joe, I'd be delighted to debate with Morgan as you suggest.

    One on one. Neutral chair. Balanced audience. No interruptions.

    Just the facts.

    Bear in mind that among my various other incompetencies being trumpeted across the blogosphere is the fact that I've never taken part in a formal debate in my life.

    But let's do it.

  20. Morgan, you say, "mechanisms like whanau ora have had a tangible effect on Maori. For example, Maori life expectancy has increased".

    Morgan, could you point me to even one piece of evidence that mechanisms like Whanau Ora have increased Maori life expectancy?

    Here I was thinking it was 172 years of the stabilising effect of British law and order, the humanising effect of British Christianity, and the wizardry of Western and East Asian science and technology that doubled Maori life expectancy.

    And all the time it was good old Karl Marx and Whanau Ora.

    Thanks for correcting me.

  21. I said: “Tribes had land confiscated (for rebellion), but were compensated up to five times. Elsewhere, rebels get shot.”

    You said: "Point to the government records that prove this and then I’ll believe you because, to be frank, I think you’re lying."

    And when I do (shall we start with the Act authorising Ngai Tahu's Full and Final Settlement no.3 in 1944?), will you apologise?

    I do hope you're not just another lefty who resorts to abuse when he runs out of arguments, then runs away.

    Calling Helen thick isn't very classy, is it? A gentleman like you ought to apologise.

    Neither is holding back my comments when I'm waiting to answer your charge of lying.

    Morgan, your recent rudeness is possibly explained by your admiration for Scott Hamilton of Reading the Maps.

    Scott's idea of classy is a post likening me to a lizard.

    May I suggest ditching him for someone more balanced and refined, like Hone Harawira or John Minto?

  22. This is a reply to the "racist tax" post by Anonymous. This is typical of ill informed comment by people seeking to find special privilege for Maori when there is none. The tax break is for Maori Authorities as defined, and not for Maori businesses. It recognises disadvantages faced by Maori Authorities. The tax break also has disadvantages. See IRD website http://www.ird.govt.nz/maori-organisations/introduction/intro-maori-authorities/.

  23. Well done for studying for so long, but when can we expect to see a published academic article? I suspect you will never be published in a peer reviewed journal. Unlike, for example, Scott Hamilton the man you attack. I suspect you dislike him because he has discredited your opinions on a number of occasions. Perhaps I’ll take off my “eye patch” when I see a cogent and evidenced based academic article from you, one that has been peer reviewed too. At the moment, you are not credible without peer review. Or is the academic world engaging in some big conspiracy to deny you and your opinions?

    You are not been realistic in relation to the constitutional review. The review is, as you mention, about appeasement politics. Any follower of politics will know this, however you well overstate the power and effects of the review. The government, or the current government at least, is not bound to follow the recommendations of the panel and, more likely than not, the government will not follow the recommendations unless those recommendations are moderate. The terms of reference for the panel are also restricted – far more restrictive than the Maori Party and many Maori wanted.

    This is the reality, any claim that John Key is attempting to create communist, animist and racist state is simply fantasy. John Key a communist? Come on. If you followed Maori politics you would also know that Pita Sharples, along with the iwi leaders group, are committed capitalists. If you read Victoria University’s post-election book (not yet released) where I contribute a chapter you’ll find that Sharples, and by extension the Maori Party, are what I call iwi capitalists. The review has no teeth and most of the recommendations will not be followed. That’s what you do with a panel, you set one up when you don’t want to deal with an issue. Much like Don Brashs’ failed catching up with Aus panel. You undermine yourself with your hyperbole, while fantasy actually, in relation to the review.

    Furthermore, the UN Dec on the rights of indigenous people has no legal effect in New Zealand unless incorporated into domestic law. Parliament is not bound by it and nor is the Court. The Court can use the dec. as a guide to interpretation and so on, but they cannot enforce it as domestic law.

    Taking your logic to its natural point, in relation to Maori having come by canoe so cannot be indigenous, then no one is indigenous. We all came from one point – Africa. Before Maori arrived in New Zealand we came from the Pacific and before than Asia. It makes no sense.

    I don’t think you realise the ideological roots of whanau ora too. It’s the privitisation of social services – surely as a committed capitalist you endorse this? Whanau ora is also for all New Zealanders – thanks to the communist John Key.

  24. Morgan, thank you for admitting that Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand. I appreciate that.

    The aborigines may not even be indigenous to Australia, but having lived there 40,000 years I think they're entitled to use the term.

    But Maori are not.

    They sailed here just a few hundred years before Abel Tasman, and from what I'm reading he may not have been the first European to come here by hundreds or even thousands of years.

    I've just been sent an old map where Cook Strait is called the Straits of the Portuguese and East Cape is called Cabo Formosa. More on that when I get to the bottom of it.

    But anyway, whether Maori were first, second, third or fourth people here, it doesn't change anything regarding the Treaty. They were certainly the locals in 1840.

    Regarding your claim that only people who have graduated from university and had their writings assessed by others from the same club, that is intellectual snobbery.

    You regard parroting the views of Marxist professors as a sign of intelligence. I don't. I regard it as an abdication of the mental faculties.

    I sampled the joys of our tertiary brainwashing and gobbledygook factory in 1976 and concluded it was full of windbags of dubious integrity.

    Not all, by any means, but too many for me to want to hang around.

    I suspect it's got much worse since.

    Scott Hamilton's childish personal attack on me is evidence that university training can fail miserably to produce well-balanced graduates confident enough to play the ball rather than the man.

    Scott, in my experience, is allergic to the ball.

    I have begun to post evidence of what I call Treatygate on my blog: www.johnansell.wordpress.com

    You are most welcome to put up whatever counter-evidence you desire. My goal is simply to expose to the truth.

    Warning: Any tiresome character assassination will be quickly exposed as a diversionary tactic, so just the facts please.

    1. What part of got here first do you not understand? 100 years or 1,000 years, or 10,000 years. Here first, indigenous!

  25. I will be following your treatygate work with interest, John. On the matter of a European race having arrived before Maori, that's a fairytale. A fairytale unsupported by any evidence and debunked quite thoroughly. Academics from across the spectrum have debunked the myth, a myth supported by pseudo-historians and fringe lunatics. See this:





    You will appreciate, no doubt, that I was not saying Maori were not indigenous. I was taking your logic to its natural conclusion in an effort to show how silly it is. Under your logic, there are no indigenous people. The Melanesians came from Asia, are they therefore not indigenous to their lands?

  26. Hi Morgan,

    I look forward to reading through Ian Wisharts new book The Great Divide - The Story of New Zealand and its Treaty.

    It sounds as though it may well support much of what John Ansell has been saying, Wisharts kids are part Maori, he does support Maori on some points of history, he says.

    At what point do we stop this back and forth stuff and work through the facts one by one? If the facts arent to each others liking we should be big enough to understand that this is about NZ, not winning an argument for mana.

  27. Morgan, you talk about taking my logic to its natural conclusion.

    So presumably you'll have no problem if I do that with yours.

    If everyone who came from somewhere is indigenous, then Europeans, too, are indigenous to New Zealand.


    In fact, I am more indigenous than at least half of Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia.

    Both of my parents, all of my grandparents, and most of my great-grandparents were born in New Zealand.

    By contrast, Pita Sharples' and Tariana Turia's fathers were born in England and America, respectively.

    I think what you guys mean, but go to great lengths not to admit, is that by 'indigenous' you mean: 'the brown people who sailed here just before the white people'.

    Why don't you just say that, and stop this pretence that Maori were the original inhabitants or that you have been here forever?

    There is plenty of evidence of pre-Maori civilisations in New Zealand, as you well know.

    A 300 page book has just been released about it. Its credibility has been enhanced by being dismissed by Dr Paul Moon, the academic who made the absurd statement that the Littlewood draft cannot be authentic because it wasn't signed.

    (Why would any chief sign a draft?! - it was only meant for the translator.)

    You also know that anything that does not suit the elites (political, bureaucratic, academic, judicial, legal, media and iwi) is ridiculed and suppressed, and the researchers' characters dragged through the mud by so-called people like Hamilton.

    But as I have said before, none of this changes the fact that the locals at the time of the Treaty were Maori.

    So you don't need to worry about that.

    But by exaggerating and claiming indigeneity, Maori separatists are just asking to be called crooked.

    Is that really what they want?

  28. Morgan, in 2005 a review of our constitutional arrangements concluded that there was not constitutional crisis and the only people pushing for change were Maori interests. Now, just seven years on, and still with no crisis or urgent need, there is a new advisory panel that has been set up due to one special-interest party - the Maori Party. This review was put forward as part of their agreement with the National Party. Part of the Maori Party's 2011 election policy was to ensure the constitutional review gives effect to the treaty.

    If the treaty, as it is interpreted by the Waitangi Tribunal, is enshrined in law, it will entrench a two-tier society with a privileged treaty class funded by every taxpayer. This is a recipe for resentment of the kind that has led to armed conflict in other nations.

    Review panels are set up, as we all know, to get the outcomes of the interested party. Therefore the terms of reference, the panel members, and the way in which the advisory panel meetings are conducted are to achieve the Maori Party goal of ensuring that the review gives effect to the treaty, and entrenching seperate Maori seats.

    The current constitutional advisory panel has caused alarm because it fails to be neutral and seems to be pushing a special interest. For instance, if this is supposed to be a wide-ranging neutral review of the rules involving who exercises power and how, why are five panelists Maori studies academics with vehement anti-colonialist views and only two with legal backgrounds?

    (The above was written by Author Mike Butler, and included here with his permission)
    Why? Because he expresses what a lot of us are concerned about. And please do not tell us that we have nothing to worry about, that the panel have no teeth and that the Govt. do not have to follow thier recommendations etc. That's what they all told us about the Governments move over the Foreshore and Seabed, and look what is happening now! Iwi have claims in for almost every stretch of coastline from 90 Mile Beach to Bluff. We do not believe such assurances, that we have nothing to worry about.

    I would also like to take exception with your academic snobbery. What on earth makes you think that the only opinion or research or infomation worth considering must come from someone with some high university degree and with peer reviewed, published articles? That is absolute nonsence! It is also extremely insulting to the many very accomplished and experienced people of New Zealand who do some amazing work without either a science degree or a PhD!

    I worked for a Crown Research Institute for seven years and I can tell you that there are many highly respected, experienced and extremely dedicated researchers and scientists working in New Zealand who have never bothered getting a PhD. These are people who would rather be out there doing the work and helping their country, than spending their time reading books and writing essays and becoming snobs. (although I have to say that not all people with PhD's are snobs, I know lots that aren't!).

    Morgan, you are only young, still a baby really. Once you get out of the insular world of acadamia and into the real world, and get some real life experience I hope that you will look back on some of what you have written here and cringe. In the mean time I would ask that you remember what I'm sure your parents would have tried to teach you - respect for your elders.

    1. Don't worry, Morgan is doing a pretty good job at diminishing the mana of the Maori Party so it won't be long and they'll be out, and so will the constitutional review and we can all go back to being a colonial country

  29. Wake up, do you think the government will risk been seen to be in agreement with these so called Maori radicals? Of course not, it is political suicide for any party, let alone the National Party. And, I should ask, what is wrong with the views of the Maori panellists like Leonie Pihama? They are tino rangatiratanga advocates, which is an accepted political idoelogy, however you seem to implicate their tino rangatiratanga views as inferior and dangerous and they will somehow lead to a tiered soceity. We already have a tiered soceity - one where Maori are at the bottom and Pakeha at the top. The UN has confirmed this reality as recently as 2011.

    When massive claims about historical cover ups, conspiracies and alliances between politicians are made those claims better be independently verified. What better way to have that than in a peer-reviewed article in a respected journal. That outcome would, as I'm sure you know, lend credence to the anti-Maori and anti-history claims been made. Without rigourous verification, those claims can rightly be looked down upon as lunacy - until proved otherwise by experts.

    How about you put a name to your comment next time, if you're going to throw around insults, do it like a man.

  30. Morgan, a man also says to a mans face what he would say behind his back, allowing offensive comments to be published whether they support his beliefs or otherwise. It works both ways my friend.

    1. Saying what I have said on this post is, I think, more than saying something to someones face. It's saying something to the entire world. These are public statements for the world to see. I knew John and others would read this... of course they would... anyone who thought otherwise would be very stupid indeed.

  31. Morgan, as the climate scientists have shown us, peer review all too often means rubber-stamped by fellow fraudsters.

    There is nothing automatically respectable about academics, quite the reverse in my view.

    Few of them seem to place much importance on clear writing, and foggy writing is a sign of foggy thinking.

    So I don't think I'll be submitting any articles to the Treatifarian Trotskyites who infest the halls of New Zealand academe.

    You ask what is wrong with having tino rangatiratanga advocate Leonie Pihama on the Constitutional Advisory Panel that is working with the public on the core of our national being.

    I would say nothing. On a population basis, Maori would be entitled to 2 members on the 12-member panel.

    Logically, one of those two should be radical, and one moderate.

    Instead there are 5 Maori, all radicals.

    On a fair panel, there would be 8 Europeans. Instead there are 5 - all chosen for their pro-Maori leanings.

    That is what is wrong, Morgan. The Constitutional Advisory Panel is rigged.

    It is rigged in order to try and talk the public into rubber-stamping a Treaty-based, Bolivian-style constitution where humans are equal to all other lifeforms and indigenous humans are more equal than others.

    As you say, the Nats certainly won't put up with all of that.

    But given that they've already appeased their Maori Party mates by surrendering Crown ownership of the coast, ratifying the UNDRIP and bribing them on the ETS, Finlayson and Key are quite capable of enshrining a Treatyfied Constitution in this Parliamentary term.

    The Maori history of perpetual grievance shows us that iwi will continue to take advantage of these weaklings until they either control the country or encounter some strength.

  32. You and Hone both harped on about how there the "wrongs" should be fixed. Can you please tell me how "Maori are working to achieve equality with Pakeha". It's one thing bitching about it and another leading the way and giving some examples of how this can and should be done - clearly not vague. The rich white children on the North Shore are born into that life going to those schools. Should they now simply give it up? Would you give up your inheritance? I think not. You don't even want to share the country.



1. Anonymous comments will be rejected. Please use your real name or a pseudonym/moniker/etc...
2. No personal abuse. Defamatory comments will be rejected.
3. I'll reject any comment that isn't in good taste.