by John Robinson
This is an excerpt from the book He Puapua: Blueprint for breaking up New Zealand, see earlier posts.
He Puapua is a report which was commissioned in 2019 by Te Puni Kokiri (the Ministry of Maori Development) to guide the Government application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This divisive and highly controversial report, which proposes a comprehensive change to New Zealand governance, was kept secret until 2021.
The extent of the intended constitutional transformation is made plain in He Puapua by a descriptive chart, with its origins clearly stated: “Drawing on the report Matike Mai Aotearoa [to an inter-tribal group, the Iwi Chairs’ Forum], the He Puapua Declaration Working Group has adopted a Tiriti model [a ‘Te Tiriti/Rangatiratanga Framework’] based round ‘spheres of authority’.” Note that this Tiriti is not the original Treaty of Waitangi, but quite the opposite, today’s reinvention.
Here, New Zealand is broken apart; there is no pretence of inclusivity or unity. “The [separated] Rangatiratanga sphere reflects Maori governance over people and places”, where Maori have complete control and autonomy. “The Kawangatanga sphere represents Crown governance” – meaning, of course, the elected government, the place for all New Zealanders, including Maori – as they insist, “Maori must be able to participate in Crown governance”, and there is no thought of withdrawing from voting for the national Parliament, but rather an insistence on preserving Maori seats within this common domain. “There is a large ‘joint sphere’ where Maori and the Crown share governance over issues of mutual concern”; that is the two parties in this divided nation, this proposed apartheid system, meet to negotiate, with an effective Maori veto.
In order that the meaning of this chart can be readily comprehensible to all readers, the labels are given here in English.
In this representation, the size of the Maori (completely separate) sphere of authority relative to the Crown sphere (the rest of us) is far less than the fraction of Maori in the population. This is a representation of yesterday’s ‘partnership’, of two partially separated people, with most of the power in the hands of all New Zealanders – which of course, includes Maori.
New Zealand, is now, in 2021, in a transition to a new, proposed government structure. This is well under way, with many actions described in chapters here. The goal is portrayed, for 2040, in the second section of the chart. This is a depiction of a proposal made in a 2000 ‘Building the Constitution’ conference’ for two parliaments (the Tikanga Maori House for Maori and the Tikanga Pakeha House for others) overseen by a Treaty of Waitangi House for Maori and Pakeha, where there would be a Maori veto (see Chapter 8). This was not accepted by other delegates, but Maori leaders have chosen not to listen to other New Zealanders, and not to join in dialogue, but to turn away, with no pretence of being inclusive, and develop their own form of apartheid.
Diagram 1 of He Puapua (right side): Maori Sphere (Rangatiratanga)/Joint Sphere/Crown Sphere (Kawanatanga), 2040
The meaning is clear. A great part of New Zealand is to come under complete Maori control (a “Maori sphere of authority”, with “Maori governance over people and places”). Apartheid will be complete. This is what the Maori elite and their followers believe they will get; they will become angry if others insist otherwise, and in their tikanga (which is now recognised by the government), anger demands satisfaction, recompense for perceived wrongs by utu. The elite of the kingitanga is seeking revenge, utu, for their defeat in the nineteenth century. This will not help struggling Maori, who benefit rather from Crown welfare and employment.
This is not an equal division of the country between the 14% Maori and the rest. As well as being in complete control of their extensive separate (rangatiratanga) domain, Maori would have considerable power over the part allotted to all others. In the common (kawangatanga) sphere: “The Crown resiles some of its power in agreed areas to make space for rangatiratanga, for defined Maori interests. The public service is bicultural and understands the ways in which it must support rangatiratanga.” The considerable power of iwi in the common public sphere (kawangatanga) – separate from and additional to that of all other New Zealanders – is being increased now, following the guidelines set out in He Puapua: in law (chapter 9), representation (chapter 10), education (chapter 11), healthcare (chapter 12) and water (chapter 13). The proposal gives the iwi leadership around three-quarters of the power together with a veto in the joint sphere. Everyone else will be disenfranchised. This is a blueprint for the complete rule of New Zealand by a determined minority.
This is tomorrow’s promised future. This is what He Puapua is telling us.
I would like to present a third vision for New Zealand, which would demand a complete unravelling of the He Puapua tsunami transformation.
In this vision, all New Zealanders would be living together harmoniously; no New Zealand citizen would be judged, and classified, by the colour of their skin or claims of ancestry, of inherited special rights (which is the very definition of an indigenous people). We would no longer be divided.
There is no mention of, or intention for, equality in either Matike Mai Aotearoa or He Puapua. “The Terms of Reference [for Matike Mai Aotearoa] did not ask the Working Group to consider such questions as ‘How might the Treaty fit within the current Westminster constitutional system’ but rather required it to seek advice on a different type of constitutionalism that is based upon He Whakaputanga [the 1835 letter from Northern chiefs to the British Crown, headed by James Busby as a “Declaration of Independence”, proposed an inter-tribal coalition, which failed] and Te Tiriti. For that reason, this Report uses the term ‘constitutional transformation’ rather than ‘constitutional change’.” They are insisting on imposing a primitive tribal system, which had self-destructed in the Musket Wars, on a modern developed nation. The Treaty of Waitangi, bringing the Westminster constitutional system, was an essential part of the great Maori cultural transformation, yet the aim is to return to a way of life which had broken apart in countrywide inter-tribal warfare.
This ‘complete constitutional transformation’ is intended to be permanent. The intention of the He Puapua arrangements is that, once they are put into place, they will be final and can never be changed. We will never overturn this revolutionary transformation and get back a unitary country without a counter-revolution, which would demand a determined united campaign by the majority of New Zealanders – which, sadly, is now not within sight.
We have lost so much, and the worst has yet to come. In a few years from now, when the revolution is triumphant and our traditional system of government is destroyed, New Zealanders will wake up and realise that “you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford have found themselves in a kerfuffle with an ‘insulated’ venue owner after the couple not only dumped their original wedding location, but then also refused to pay the $5000 cancellation fee.
Robin Pierson, owner of the Bushmere Arms venue, says Ardern and Gayford booked the venue almost two years ago, but talks then broke down over catering by a Kiwi celebrity chef.
‘Jacinda and Clarke came here two years ago, she sat on the barstool and said, ‘We’d like to book our wedding here,’’ Pierson told the Herald on Sunday.
‘Jacinda told me, ‘Peter Gordon has always said he wanted to be involved in my wedding’ to which I said, ‘I’ll have a free cooking lesson any day,’ thinking it would be a collaborative effort and we would be working together.’
When it was revealed that Pierson would not be involved with the catering, he says he not only felt ‘insulted’ by the dealings, but frustrated that the couple is now refusing to pay the cancellation fee.
‘They have offered me $1200 and I’ve yet to get back to them. They say my fee is ‘unfounded’ but it’s not up to them to tell me what my cancellation fee is.’
One user mused: ‘Easy to spend money that’s not yours, has no perception of that cost.’
‘What a pity she doesn’t take that attitude when she’s throwing taxpayers money around,’ said another.
Blogger Cameron Slater says: “On October 12 I posted this to Twitter and FB: ‘From my tipline: Several high profile wedding venues in Gisborne have REFUSED to host Jacinda Ardern’s wedding, among them Bushmere Estate. 2 venues fear damaging their brand by having JA there and one refused to give in to JA’s ‘conditions’ (bringing her own chefs, own security). Out of 4 potential venues in Gisborne, 3 have refused and one is on the brink. Interesting if true.’ Turns out I was right.”
Well, Harry Tam would no doubt be happy to organize something for the Mongrel Mob’s biggest fan at Mob HQ, or she could go to North Korea for it and meet the other Dear Leader… —Eds
By Malcolm Warr dated 1977. Rather more abstract than other works of his.
Wiremu Te Kakakura Parata aka Wi Parata, was born on Kapiti Island, probably in the mid 1830s. He was the son of Metapere Waipunahau, a Maori woman of high status, and George Stubbs, a whaler and trader from Australia.
His grandfather Te Rangi Hīroa and his great-uncle Te Pēhi Kupe were leading rangatira among the Te Āti Awa and Ngāti Toa iwi who had settled along the Kapiti Coast.
During the 1870s he was a member of the House of Representatives and a Minister of the Crown.
His mother, Metapere Wai-punahau, was the daughter of Te Rangihiroa, younger brother of Te Pehi Kupe, the hereditary leader of Ngati Toa who had occupied the Kapiti coast from the 1820s. Metapere Wai-punahau was given in marriage to George Stubbs, an American whaler and trader. The name they gave to their son, Te Kakakura, said to have been taken from the dying speech of Te Pehi Kupe, refers to the red feathers under the wing of the kaka, symbolic of high chiefs. In later years Te Kakakura Parata was to come into possession of a cloak made of these feathers.
The name Wiremu (Wi) appears to have been given later.
Wi Parata’s father was drowned in a boating accident off Pukerua Bay about 1838, and Parata had only one brother, Hemi Matenga. His mother moved her family from Kapiti to the palisaded pa at Kenakena at the mouth of the Waikanae River, where Parata spent his childhood
Wi is said to have married twice. Nothing is known of his first wife. His second wife was Unaiki, of Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Toa. They are said to have married in 1852, and to have had at least 11 children, including four sons.
Wi Parata died at Waikanae, as the result of injuries sustained falling from a horse, on 29 Sep 1906. His tangihanga was reported to have been ‘one of the most important functions of this kind that has been held in this island for many years’. His wife, Unaiki, had died on 25 April 1891. Both their portraits were painted by Gottfried Lindauer in 1877, and Parata is commemorated in stained glass in St Luke’s Church.
The Parata family burial ground, Ruakohatu, stands adjacent to St Luke’s Church. This is where Wiremu Te Kakakura Parata is buried, his grave being marked by an imposing marble bust which looks down on his many descendants who followed him there.
by Senator Ron Johnson (Republican, Wisconsin)
The vaccines do not preclude infection or transmission. As a result, we are forcing people to choose between their livelihoods and a freedom-robbing vaccination mandate with no rationale.
Like President Biden, who said in December 2020, “I don’t think it should be mandatory, I wouldn’t demand it be mandatory,” I was opposed to Cv vaccine mandates from the start. Unlike President Biden, I haven’t flip-flopped.
In fact, my opposition to mandates is growing stronger with each new anecdote and piece of information that shows not only how futile they are but how devastating these self-inflicted harms will be. President Biden, his administration, corporate media, and social media are denying three realities:
1. The effectiveness of natural immunity and how medically unnecessary it is for the previously infected to get vaccinated.
2. The fact that fully vaccinated individuals are getting infected and transmitting Cv. Unfortunately, some are also becoming seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying. This is not, as President Biden repeatedly insists, a pandemic solely of the unvaccinated.
3. Vaccine injuries, including death, are occurring at far higher numbers than health authorities want to admit.
“Established in 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines,” says its government website. As of October 1, 2021, VAERS has reported 16,310 deaths after Cv shots so far — with 5,326 (33 percent) occurring on Day 0, 1, or 2 after vaccination — and 778,685 total adverse events.
The two main criticisms of discussing this data from VAERS are that it does not prove the Cv injections caused these injuries (although these numbers should still alarm) and that VAERS significantly underreports vaccine injuries (which should increase alarm).
Those of us who attempt to inform the public of these three realities are not only the targets of vilification, we are also magnets for people who desperately want their stories to be told so others can avoid harm. Over the last few weeks, the stories have become more numerous and more alarming.
Three areas of particular urgency involve health care, the military, and aviation. Some of the stories have already been reported publicly, some have not. Here are but a few examples.
As we have seen in New York state, many doctors and nurses who refuse to be vaccinated now must leave health care, either voluntarily or involuntarily, due to vaccine coercion. Their decades of medical skill and knowledge will be lost to the mandates.
I have been inundated with testimonials from doctors, nurses, and other health-care workers asking for relief from the mandates and indicating they will not succumb to the pressure. New York’s experience will be replicated throughout America, and the negative impact on health care will be profound.
I have been in contact with Lt. Col. Theresa Long, an Army flight surgeon. Her affidavit, which was part of an amended filing in a lawsuit against the military regarding vaccine mandates and injuries in the military, was made public in late September and describes only a small portion of the alarming story she has to tell.
As a result of her efforts to alert her superiors, she is now a pariah to her senior command, and her medical license is being attacked merely for speaking out. The day before her superiors canceled all her appointments with patients, two out of five aviators she saw had developed pericarditis shortly after vaccination, only reporting their symptoms because they read an affidavit online. She has much more to tell but is under a gag order imposed by the military.
The recent flight delays involving Southwest Airlines are another harbinger of mandate harm. Although Southwest’s CEO and pilot union officially deny that delays are being caused by a worker slowdown in reaction to vaccine mandates, individuals are confirming what most of us view as obvious.
Last week, I received a letter from a Wisconsin constituent who is a pilot for a U.S.-based airline. His testimonial raises serious concerns regarding airline safety and demonstrates why we can add a growing pilot shortage to the self-inflicted harms of the vaccine mandate.
The most alarming anecdote in this letter involved a recently vaccinated pilot who “sustained, over a two-day period, partial blindness in one eye and then severe migraine headaches.” His doctor told him he had suffered “micro strokes.” The pilot did not report his medical condition to his Federal Aviation Administration medical examiner because he feared “he would lose his pilot certifications, and hence his livelihood.”
Long submitted her affidavit because her primary responsibility involves keeping military pilots healthy and flight-ready. Part of that responsibility involves grounding pilots when she judges them unready. She is highly concerned that for little to no benefit — these young healthy pilots have a very low probability of severe Cv — we are putting their health and our military readiness at risk.
Unfortunately, we now know the vaccines do not preclude infection or transmission. As a result, we are forcing people to choose between their livelihoods and a freedom-robbing vaccination mandate with no rationale. We are only beginning to see the dire consequences of these ill-advised mandates.
The worst is yet to come in Jacindaland, too —Eds
See the transcribed oral submission by Geoffrey and Eva to the Long Term Plan hearings in June on this. Hopefully, this is not the final word: “where there’s a will there’s a way.”