This was held yesterday and was attended by around 150 people, a lot more than the 35 stated members of the society, so clearly many people are rattled by what is being erected by property businessmen in Ngarara Road.
But not only that; the intended development in Eruini Street by the same property businessmen has also concerned a lot of people and was the main topic of discussion during the half hour meeting. It was stated that the businessmen involved have in the last few days put their Eruini Street application with KCDC ‘on hold’ (not the same thing as withdrawn), although why and what the signficance of that is wasn’t at all clear from comments made by the present mayor and deputy mayor. It seems one issue from what Quentin Poole said may be the flood plain and the added floor height needed to be above it in that place (see the comments by Richard Mansell in an earlier post).
A fightback involving a change to the housing intensification requirements the Jacinda regime imposed on councils everywhere is part of what needs to happen (and seems to be happening) to prevent property businessmen from doing this again. The current mayor said she has “even” written to Deputy PM David Seymour to achieve this.
Watch this space, as they say.
A poster produced by the society showing garden area scenes on the left and the unsuccessful Utauta Street high density ‘carbuncle’ on the right.
Why are the Far Left Stuffers so concerned about council candidates who want to end waste, end corruption, want transperancy and accountability, and want to keep rates to a level that working people can afford? We have more to say about this, but will post it after the election.
from Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti
A couple of days ago we received an enquiry from the Sunday Star Times (SST) about the links between Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti and other individuals and groups. We are posting the questions that we received, and the response that we gave to the SST, as there is often a very big difference between the information provided to media outlets, and what finally gets published. As our followers, we thought that you should see what we have provided to the SST, so that you can judge for yourselves if you should read what the SST finally decides to publish.
What the SST asked us was:
“We are preparing a story on the local government election for the Sunday Star Times. It will discuss the proliferation of groups such as the Concerned Ratepayers network and some confusion about who these groups are affiliated with. I understand the group is not formally associated with the Concerned Ratepayers movement, despite saying on your website that the group works collaboratively with Concerned Ratepayers Wellington Region, your logo being a cropped version of that group’s logo, having a similar name, and its founder, Dean Harris, emceeing events for your group. What is the meaningful difference between the two organisations? On the questionnaire you sent candidates, you said the group was “not affiliated with any Council or Mayoral candidate” despite the quite obvious connections to Dean Harris and your former chair, Chris Harwood, who is running on his ticket. Can you explain why this statement shouldn’t be viewed as misleading?”
The response we provided to the SST is set out in full below. It’s quite long, but that’s because we felt that we should outline who we actually are, and that we are all about getting a lower level of future rates increases for you, the residents of the Kapiti District:
“Thank you for your questions and taking an interest in the important work of Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti. My name is Michael Papesch and I’m the spokesperson for Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti and your email has been given to me by our Secretary for response.
Please accept our apologies for the slight delay in replying to you, We are a voluntary organisation, our members have day jobs and we were hosting a public “meet-the-candidates” meeting in Otaki last night. In those circumstances, it isn’t always easy to be able to respond to media questions within 22 hours, no matter how straightforward they may appear.
Before we get to your specific questions, some information about us.
We are a voluntary group of ordinary people who have become concerned about what we see happening in local government in Kapiti. Some of us have run businesses and are scratching our heads at many of the Council’s decisions from an efficiency perspective, and its inability to control its costs. Some of us have been former senior managers in central and local government, who are also scratching our heads about the twin trends of increasing spending and declining performance in some key areas of the Council’s performance. Others come from other professional backgrounds such as finance and accounting, legal and property management, publishing, civil engineering, finance and accounting, human resources and media. Some have experience in retail, or working with various community organisations.
All of us came together as a group to oppose the 115% rates increase that Council has planned over the next ten years, because we believe that rates hikes of this magnitude are increasingly driving many in the community into an unaffordable situation. Some people are starting to really worry that they will have to leave their homes because they can’t afford the rates. We have spoken to people who have told us they are already losing sleep over this. And we believe that these rates increases are not inevitable. Some simple policy choices can be made that would drastically reduce future rates increases below what the Council plans.
It is our belief that the Council is not currently serving the community well in a number of key areas. We believe Council should be more open and transparent about its finances and its performance – beyond the back-patting puff pieces that the Council publishes about itself. We know that residents find it hard get information about the detail of Council activities, spending and decisions, and it is. We have been working at it for the best part of a year now, and we can personally testify how hard it can be to find information on many of the things the Council is doing.
We also believe that the Council should do much better in its engagement with its community. Accountability to the community is being lost to pre-determined agendas, even when ostensibly ‘consulting’ with the community. We believe that Council is not listening to what the community has to say. When engaging with the Council, we come away feeling that you are talking to a brick wall.
Over the past year we engaged with the Council many times on ways to get its spending under control and to deliver a lower rates path. With the election coming up, we are looking to provide good information to support residents’ choices in the election – for example, by hosting “meet the candidates” meetings – and encouraging residents to vote (whoever they wish to vote for). We have held three public meetings so far and even those who do not agree with our policy suggestions have complimented us on how good and engaging these meetings are for residents.
In this context, now to your specific questions.
The catalyst for establishing Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti was a meeting held in October 2024 of various people across the lower half of the North Island, under name of “Concerned Ratepayers”. A number of our eventual committee went to that meeting, and resolved to investigate establishing a Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti. There was one such further meeting of this regional grouping in late 2024. However, it quickly became apparent that the situation and context of each district was different and unique. Kapiti has a different set of issues and challenges to Wellington, and to districts in the Wairarapa. So, from very early on in our existence, we have operated independently of any others who have used the name “Concerned Ratepayers”. Our committee is entirely made up of local Kapiti residents, and our submissions to Council are prepared entirely by our local Committee. There is no input in our governance, or policy development, from anyone else using the label “Concerned Ratepayers” anywhere else in New Zealand.
It is true that Dean Harris was the MC for two meetings. The first was an initial meeting in Paraparaumu to gauge if there was sufficient interest among Kapiti residents to establish a Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti group. The second was our first public meeting as Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti. But that’s it. We asked Dean to MC these meetings because he’s very good at it. All our subsequent meetings have been MC’d by our local Committee.
Given that, we do not agree that we have an “obvious” connection with Dean Harris’ candidacy. Being an MC for two meeting in late 2024 does not make us “affiliated”, in our view. If you do not agree with that conclusion, we would be interested to know why.
You are correct that Chris Harwood was our previous chair, and is standing for Council, but she resigned from Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti the moment she decided to stand – and well before her candidacy was announced. That is an entirely appropriate course of action for Chris Harwood to take, and we don’t see how that can be construed as Chris Harwood being “affiliated” with Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti. Again, if you do not agree with that conclusion, we would be interested to know why and what actions should have been taken instead when Ms Harwood decided to be a candidate.
We encourage you to direct questions about those candidates to them directly.
I trust this gives you a good overview of our group, its origins, what its purpose and goals are, what we have been doing, and how we have organized ourselves to avoid any suggestion of conflicts. But if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me anytime.
Can you please advise the nature of your planned article as there may be further information that we can provide you, to assist you in finalizing your material.
Given that you will be publishing a story, we will post a copy of our reply to you on out Facebook page. We will however remove references to your name and your email address, to protect your privacy. Thank you again for taking an interest in the important work of Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti.
Australia’s Labor government has made a historic move: it has formally recognised the State of Palestine. Foreign Minister Penny Wong framed the decision as a step towards peace and a two-state solution. The headlines blared “Australia recognises Palestine” but almost none of the mainstream outlets bothered to mention the fine print. And the fine print matters.
Unlike the simplistic narrative of recognition, the Albanese government has attached a list of conditions to Palestine’s recognition, conditions which the Palestinian Authority (PA) has little hope of fulfilling.
What Are the Conditions?
Australia’s recognition is not a blank cheque. It comes with explicit expectations: • The Palestinian Authority must reaffirm Israel’s right to exist. • It must hold democratic elections, something it has avoided for almost two decades. • It must undertake sweeping reforms in governance, finance, and education, sectors notorious for corruption and incitement. • And critically: Hamas can have no role in any Palestinian government if recognition is to mean anything.
On paper, those restrictions look tough. In practice, however, recognition was already extended before a single one of those conditions was fulfilled. Australia has effectively put the cart before the horse rewarding the PA in the hope that they will one day behave.
Why the Silence on Conditions?
If you scanned the ABC, SBS, or most of the major newspapers, you would think Australia had just recognised Palestine unconditionally. The headlines were all designed to look like a diplomatic triumph. What was missing was the acknowledgement that this “recognition” is riddled with caveats.
Why is that important? Because it changes the story entirely. If conditions don’t have to be met first, then recognition is just a symbolic gift to the Palestinian Authority. The conditions become nothing more than polite diplomatic footnotes, quietly ignored until the next crisis erupts.
The lack of mainstream scrutiny is telling. The press is quick to criticise Israel’s democratic choices, yet it brushes past the fact that Palestinians haven’t held a national election since 2006. Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, remains entrenched in Gaza. But apparently, those details are inconvenient for the narrative of “Australia standing up for Palestine.”
Can the U.S. Veto This Anyway?
Here’s the kicker: no matter what Australia does, recognition at the United Nations still runs into one immovable obstacle the United States. For Palestine to gain full UN member-state status, it must pass through the Security Council. The U.S. has a veto there and has consistently blocked past attempts.
So Australia’s recognition is mostly symbolic. It pleases the activist class, panders to international opinion, and costs little in Canberra. But it also risks signalling to Palestinians that they can be rewarded before they reform. That is the dangerous precedent at the heart of this decision.
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
There are indications that groups supporting the political left are driving very strong campaigns to mobilise voters in the local body elections – especially those in favour of Maori wards. Please do what you can to help ensure everyone who is eligible to vote does so – and, in those areas where referenda are being held, firmly rejects Maori wards. Voting closes at midday on Saturday 11 October. The last day for returning your ballot papers by post is Tuesday 7 October – after that, they must be hand-delivered via a council ballot box.
In this week’s feature article we outline how the framework for a separatist nation-state has been embedded deep within government institutions and warn that if democracy is to endure, these race-based structures must be dismantled by the Coalition, our NZCPR Guest Commentator Emeritus Professor Roger Openshaw explains how the Maori elite elevated ‘Matauranga Maori’ – Maori knowledge and spiritualism – onto an equal footing with ‘Western Science’, and our poll asks whether you think the Coalition is doing enough to dismantle Labour’s separatist agenda. Last newsletter…
In case you missed it, with the latest polls showing the Coalition would not win the next election, in our last feature article, we investigated why they are losing the trust of voters HERE, and our NZCPR Guest Commentator former Federated Farmers President Owen Jennings questioned Fonterra’s decision to sell its iconic brands business HERE. Still available: The Treaty of Waitangi, which was written by lawyer and Member of Parliament Sir Apirana Ngata in 1922, sets the record straight about the original meaning of the Maori version of the Treaty. It challenges the re-interpretations being used by activists to justify their Treaty ‘partnership’ fabrication and undemocratic co-governance. For a donation to cover postage and printing we’ll send you ten copies of Sir Apirana’s brilliant analysis to share with family and friends – click HERE for details.
As always, thank you most sincerely for your continued interest and support. And please feel free to share the information in this newsletter as far and wide as you can!
Warmest regards,
Dr Muriel Newman New Zealand Centre for Political Research
REINSTATING DEMOCRACY By Dr Muriel Newman
The ‘Maorification’ of New Zealand is not by accident. For decades tribal leaders have been plotting and scheming how to get their hands on the levers of power. Their objective is full control of our country.
It is now obvious that they are a long way down the path to achieving their goal. If there’s no counter-movement, they will succeed.
We don’t need to guess what the consequences would be if the radicalised get their way: South Africa and Zimbabwe come to mind, although in those countries it was the majority that sought to overthrow minority rule.
In New Zealand it’s a minority of subversives who are attempting to seize control from a complacent public – assisted by successive governments: Jim Bolger and John Key made the radicals stronger by appeasing their demands, while Helen Clark and Jacinda Ardern pro-actively progressed their cause.
While the concept of a radical minority of activists engineering a transfer of state authority to private tribal corporations may seem preposterous, it’s important to recognise this constitutional insurgence did not happen overnight.
The ideological groundwork was laid in the seventies. Radical activists Donna Awatere Huata, now Maori Climate Commissioner and a former Member of Parliament, and Ripeka Evans – currently Deputy Chairman of TVNZ – played a pivotal role. Travelling to Cuba to collaborate with Palestine Liberation Front extremists, they developed a revolutionary plan to transform New Zealand into a Maori Nation State.
Their fundamental objective was to secure control of New Zealand land: “Maori sovereignty is the Maori ability to determine our own destiny… New Zealand is Maori land. The aim is to reclaim all land. This country belongs to Maori.”
Now, fifty years later, the modern-day manifestation of this revolutionary movement is the Maori Party in Parliament. Their website confirms a key policy is the return of land: private land, as well as government-owned land including the Conservation Estate, along with council land and the country’s entire foreshore and seabed.
They plan to secure power through a new constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi. They want all Waitangi Tribunal recommendations to be made binding, the country to be called Aotearoa, with all ‘official’ names of places and agencies in Maori, control of Education and Health, Corrections and the Police – in other words, they want to turn New Zealand into a Maori Nation State.
To achieve their goal, they have replaced their real history of tribal warfare, slavery and cannibalism, with a narrative of victimhood and grievance in order to drive a radical campaign of disinformation against the Coalition Government. Calling for mass rebellion, tensions are now so high that Maori Party insurgence has become a real threat to social order.
It’s important to remember that the Maori Party is only in Parliament because they have guaranteed Maori seats. The question that needs to now be asked is why those seats are tolerated, given they have become a power base for dangerous extremists who wish to destroy our democracy.
The Maori seats are a privilege the Maori Party does not deserve.
Introduced in the early years of our new Parliament to ensure Maori had the right to vote, the Maori seats should have been abolished in 1893 when New Zealand adopted universal suffrage, and all adults gained the right to vote.
A public mandate on their future is long overdue. New Zealanders deserve the right to decide whether the Maori seats in Parliament should stay or go – just as the Coalition has given voters the right to accept or reject Maori seats in local government.
In fact, with a referendum on a four-year term of Parliament likely to be held at the next election, the Coalition should deliver a Constitutional Trifecta: an opportunity for voters to not only decide whether to give politicians an extra year in power, but also, whether the Maori seats should be retained or removed, and whether the voting age should be lowered to 16.
A NO vote on the introduction of a four year term, NO to the retention of the Maori Seats, and NO to reducing the voting age to 16, would ensure that when the toxic trio of Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party gain power, their destructive influence would last only three years, not four; that the anarchists seeking to destroy democracy would no longer get a free pass into Parliament; and that the idea of using impressionable 16-year olds to secure electoral advantage, would be rejected by New Zealand voters once and for all.
Back when Donna Awatere outlined her vision for Maori Sovereignty, she dismissed public opposition as an obstacle: “The strength of white opposition will be allayed by the fact that Maori sovereignty will not be taken seriously. Absolute conviction in the superiority of white culture will not allow most white people to even consider the possibility.”
Those words have proved prophetic – but not quite in the way envisaged.
The key reason New Zealanders have not resisted the tribal takeover is that activists pursued an incremental approach to avoid triggering public alarm. With operatives embedded deep within the machinery of the State decades ago in a classic Marxist ‘march through the institutions’, many changes were engineered from within.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Dr Roger Oppenshaw, Emeritus Professor of Education at Massey University, has provided two papers investigating such a change. In his research paper, “Separate but Equal?” – see HERE – he uses Archive New Zealand records to trace how the Maori elite elevated ‘Matauranga Maori’ onto an equal footing with ‘Western Science’, and his commentary “Education and Identity Politics” (HERE) discusses the implications:
“The role of the Maori elite in promoting Maori Science has been crucial to the subject’s success. In this case a relatively small, carefully selected grouping of those deemed to be ‘in the know’ came to define what Maori Science was to be about and what it should include.
“During the first half of the 1990s, this neo-tribal elite was able to gain official recognition for Maori Science as a key part of Matauranga Maori (literally Maori ways of knowing). Matauranga Maori is in fact, derived from a worldwide ideology known as Culturalism, which has it that all cultures have legitimate and equal claims. For Maori Science advocates this meant they could claim equal partnership under the Treaty with what advocates disparagingly labelled ‘Western’ Science.”
Professor Openshaw explains that these changes led to ‘science’ being progressively devalued by many educators as a symbol of oppression and colonisation. With such radical indoctrination being taught in our schools, it is little wonder that student achievement in science has been falling!
In 2017, when Jacinda Ardern became Prime Minister and Labour won all of the Maori seats, the incremental approach to institutional capture was replaced by a coordinated strategy spearheaded by a new government agency working in collaboration with tribal leaders.
The Office of Maori-Crown Relations reshaped the State sector from within, embedding a radical Treaty indoctrination framework across government – and when Labour won a majority in 2020, the floodgates were opened.
At that stage, confident of success and buoyed by media support – thanks to a $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund that linked payouts to the promotion of the Maori sovereignty agenda – Labour revealed He Puapua, their secret blueprint to replace democracy with tribal rule, and the race to the finish-line began in earnest.
Fortunately, not all journalists were captured. Thanks to Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper, the revelation that the tribal takeover of health through the Maori Health Authority was resulting in Maori patients being prioritised ahead of those in greater clinical need, sparked such a severe public backlash that not only was clinical urgency restored as a cornerstone of our health system, but the Authority itself was dismantled.
However, most of the framework that embedded Treaty rights and the noose of cultural competency within the State sector during Labour’s time in office is still there.
Breaking free is not easy – as can be seen from reports opposing the Inland Revenue Department’s disestablishment of its Maori research and evaluation team, and Pharmac’s termination of their specialist Maori and anti-racism advisors.
Since virtually every government agency was targeted by He Puapua activists – including independent organisations such as the Reserve Bank and the Auditor General – it is surely time for a co-ordinated purge. If the Labour-appointed radicals within the State sector are not outed, government agencies will continue their journey towards a Maori Nation State, thwarting Coalition attempts at reform.
This can be seen in the actions of the Local Government Commission – an independent Crown Entity of three members initially appointed by former Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta. Tasked by that Minister with developing a universal code of conduct for elected members of local authorities, their draft code includes a Treaty clause aligned with Labour’s He Puapua agenda. This comes in spite of a recent High Court ruling confirming that local authorities are not Treaty partners, and that councillors therefore hold no Treaty obligations.
With submissions on their draft code open until midnight tonight – Friday 26 September – we urge anyone concerned to not only send a quick email to the Commission at lgc@lgc.govt.nz recommending that the Treaty Clause 8 be removed from the proposed Code of Conduct, but send another email to Local Government Minister, Simon Watts at simon.watts@parliament.govt.nz asking him to withdraw the Code entirely, since it should be councils themselves that decide such matters, not central government.
Please note: All MP email addresses can be found HERE.
The reality is that someone would need to be blind and deaf these days not to recognise the tribal takeover. Whether at sporting events, cultural functions, workplaces, or even watching TV at home, the Maori Sovereignty agenda now dominates.
It’s not just government agencies, the media, and, increasingly, the Judiciary, that have been captured, but a multitude of private sector organisations too – includingNew Zealand Opera!
Since attempts to push back against such developments will often result in strong opposition and accusations of racism, almost everyone backs off.
What this unfortunately means, is that all it takes to capture an organisation is for one determined activist to join their ranks and demand the inclusion of Treaty rights. While most others may be opposed, all too often they acquiesce in order to avoid a confrontation.
To their credit, Coalition partners have been pushing back against such intimidation in their drive to rein in Maori sovereignty activism.
While David Seymour, Winston Peters and Shane Jones have taken the lead, National’s Chris Bishop appears to be joining their ranks – if a recent speech in Parliament where he took aim at the Maori Party, is anything to go by:
“Then we have Te Pati Maori. Now, where to start on these clowns? Takuta Ferris posted this on Instagram – ‘Indians, Asians, Black and Pakeha campaigning to take a Maori seat from Maori’. It doesn’t get much more racist than that. I’m prepared to call it racist. Thousands of New Zealanders think it’s racist – actually, most people think it’s racist … and we’ve got to make sure that these clowns in Te Pati Maori and their bench mates in the Green Party – who seem to stand up for all of it – are never allowed anywhere near the Treasury benches, or they will drive this country into ruin.”
Is this the beginning of the real push back by the Coalition that New Zealanders have been hoping for? Or is National only now realising the race issue is one they can no longer avoid.
Over the years, with pro-active support from Labour, the tribal sovereignty movement has embedded the framework for a separatist nation-state deep within government institutions. This constitutional transformation was never approved by the public – yet it continues to shape policy, funding, and governance.
If democracy in New Zealand is to endure, these race-based structures must be dismantled by the Coalition. For far too long, the push toward tribal supremacy has been downplayed or ignored – yet its influence over public institutions is growing stronger. It’s time to draw the line and take our country back.
