…who colonised New Zealand

by Ben Hope

In debate over the Treaty of Waitangi, co-governance and demands by a minority of radicals with Maori fore-fathers or fore-mothers, there are some very fundamental facts that are ignored.

The first fact is all indigenous New Zealanders are descended from migrants who colonised New Zealand.  Artificial Intelligence (AI ) says “Māori colonists arrived in New Zealand from East Polynesia in the 13th century. They are descendants of Polynesian peoples who journeyed to [New Zealand] in large ocean-going canoes, known as waka. While the exact origin is debated, evidence suggests they came from islands like the Cook Islands or the Society Islands (which includes Raiatea)

(Note AI terms the Maori migrants as ”colonists”.)

AI then says “European colonists to New Zealand in the 19th century primarily came from Britain and Ireland, which made up about 90% of immigrants. However, other Europeans from countries like Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands also arrived, along with smaller numbers from places such as Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. “

“Maori colonists” and “European colonists.” Equal origins. Both groups were migrants.

“One People”

Which immediately debunks the derogatory statements about the evil European colonists. 

The Maori colonists according to Wikipedia committed “genocide” involving “mass murder, enslavement and cannibalism” on the peace-loving Mori-ori of the Chatham Islands.

In contrast the European colonists endeavoured to set up a peaceful society in New Zealand based on egalitarian principles of “equal opportunity for all.” The Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and Governor Hobson proclaimed: “He iwi tahi tatoa” (we are now one people)”.

A fair, egalitarian society

The European settlers laid down laws which set out to embed egalitarian into the new society. 

No better example can be found than fish and game laws. The settlers quite deliberately abandoned the English feudal society, where fees are charged and access to the best trout or salmon fishing, costs large sums of money, notably in Scotland.  Consequently in Britain generally only the wealthy “upper class” could afford the fees. The pioneers wanted a fairer society in New Zealand, where all sport – and including the best fishing and shooting – could be enjoyed by all whatever their origins.

There would be nothing of the British situation where only the wealthy could afford the fees necessary to:-

• fish for brown trout in the spring creeks
• fish the best trout or salmon rivers
• shoot pheasant or a red deer stag.

Clear Intent

The principle is that anyone, regardless of race, income or class could enjoy outdoor sports such as fishing and hunting. To reiterate, that principle is defined in fishing and hunting statutes where the sale of trout fishing and duck shooting rights is prohibited by law.

Fish and game laws clearly show the intent of the European settlers — equal rights for every person.

But what has happened?

Misinterpretation of the Treaty, either by ignorance or design, has resulted in special or preferential treatment for those with even a smidgen of Maori ancestry such as using so-called “tikanga” (Maori practices) as an excuse for enforcing lesser punishment to Maori offenders.

Today New Zealand has a cosmopolitan population, fuelled by migrants from a wide range of countries. AI estimates that 17 percent are of Asian descent with origins from countries like India, the Philippines, and China.

AI estimates that 17 percent are of Maori descent although one other source puts it at 19 percent. In 2023, the Asian population was 31 percent of Auckland’s total population.  According to the 2023 Census, Māori (Part-Maori) make up 12 percent of Auckland’s population.

Preferential treatment and special rights

So, what about the special ‘customs’ and religious beliefs of ethnicities other than Maori?  Why aren’t they taken into account in the same manner as “tikanga”?

 After all, the Treaty Agreement very clearly states that all citizens of New Zealand have the same rights.  And yet, there are hundreds of preferential ‘provisions’ … along with 96 Acts of Parliament favouring Māori.

 Despite this favouritism, the cry we always hear from activists of every hue is, quote: “Honour the treaty”.  Many will agree.  It should be honoured in its edict of equal opportunity for all.

Some will make extreme, radical claims that Maori should have certain exclusive “rights” due to the belief that they are tangata whenua (first settlers). But are they? (Refer to many articles about this on WW but particularly this one.)

There is a much evidence that strongly suggests Maori were not the first to settle in New Zealand. Go searching with search engines to find out.

Conveniently misused

The word ‘indigenous” is misused when it’s applied to one ancestry, i.e Maori.  The Collins Dictionary says indigenous means “originating or occurring naturally in a country.” Well I was originated (born) in New Zealand. I have English, Scottish, Irish and German ancestry. With mixed blood I am a mongrel or better termed as a hybrid.

MP Willie Jackson who stridently advocates for special rights for those with Maori descent has allegedly through DNA results ancestry of 34 percent  East Asian, 25 percent Ashkenazi (German) Jewish, 18 percent  other European (substantially Welsh) and 2 percent Oceanian / Maori.

Another “Maori” notable figure is Steve (Tipene O’Regan) with about a 6 percent Maori ancestry and the rest European. He’s principally of Irish ancestry.

Yes, I agree with the activists that we should honour the Treaty — as it was set out in three articles.  Then New Zealand can stop all the current pretence and New Zealanders can live harmoniously together as a diverse mix of nationalities, mongrels all — with the same rights, duties and responsibilities.

As Governor Hobson said, “He iwi tahi tatoa” (we are now one people)”