Can they ever be constructive?

March 14th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Radio NZ reports:

New Zealand First is refusing to take part in the Government’s constitutional review.

The review is looking into matters such as the size of Parliament, Maori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution.

But New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says it is sham designed to sneak the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into all laws.

This is so typical. An inability to actually contribute constructively to anything – just mindless opposition. It would be one thing to take part, and then if you didn’t like the recommendations to depart, condemning them. But to refuse to even participate in the first place, means that you have made your mind up to oppose it regardless of what is recommended. And that is a pity because constitutional changes should have as much support as possible.

Peters lies that it is all about the Treaty. In fact many of the issues under consideration are ones he has championed – the size of Parliament and electoral integrity (waka jumping) laws. So NZ First has said we don’t want to even advocate for policies we have supported in the past.

18 Responses to “Can they ever be constructive?”

  1. hmmokrightitis (1,919 comments) says:

    Ah come on DPF, cuts into his drinking time, you know this. He is there to stick two fingers up at the public, not contribute.

    Someone needs to ask the aging member why he used to fly to Auckland and then get a Crown car to Hamilton all the time 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. burt (11,468 comments) says:


    You seem to expect that Peters would actually remember what he supported in the past. Hell he couldn’t even remember his secret trust….. the hundreds ofn thousands of donations funnelled through them etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Adolf Fiinkensein (3,638 comments) says:

    Mr Peters and Jessie Ryder have a lot in common.

    So much promise and so little performance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. barry (1,233 comments) says:

    DPF -have you looked at who is one the review panel? check them out – idiots and lapdogs. The real brains that were asked all turned it down – they could see the shambles that it would be. The maori party sang praises when the list was announced – not a good sign

    the group is: I think only 2 sensible people on the list.

    John Burrows, QC, a theory guy who has some idea the treaty rules should be delegated by government to some other body (which Im sure hed like to run)
    Sir Tipene O’Regan – about as unbiased as Hone’s mother
    Bernice Mene – Im not sure that she understands what she’s into
    Peter Chin – well his claim to fame is how to set up the Dunedin council to waste so much money
    Peter Tennent – a successful ex mayor of New Plymouth – one of the few straight up people on this list.
    Deborah Coddington – besides Tennent the only other realist in the group.
    Michael Cullen – a very duplicitous character who is currently advising iwi on how to screw the tax payer,
    Leonie Pihama – from the same department as that lunatic racist Mutu. About as straight up as a $9 note
    John Luxton – ex director of Blue Chip and currently a director of the failed Kaimai cheese company – I think not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
    Hinurewa Poutu – an activist for compulsory maori language.
    Linda Tuhiwai Smith – don’t know much about her – but shes a maori language advocate and has been an advocate for some treaty claims,
    Ranginui Walker – about the only more racist person in the country would be Hone’s mother. Ranginui Walker is full of racist violence.

    I think Peters can see what a mess this lot will come up with – I think even i coud see that even when fully pissed……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. barry (1,233 comments) says:

    Forgot to add – 7 of the 12 are anti-pakeha maori. Just wait till they come uop with their thoughts………it will be ugly

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. jaba (2,181 comments) says:


    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Michael Mckee (1,254 comments) says:

    reading between the lines Winston has a point.
    Personally until “the treaty is a living document and the founding do usenet of the country crowd ” agree to it being kept as a historical document only at Te Papa I will never be happy for this so called process to carry on.

    Cullen should be in jail.
    o’regan hasn’t helped ordinary Maori in years. I mean a million $ a year in fees for his company from the waiting I tribunal?
    As for the activists, John Key knows who and what they are so National should be sacked next election.

    But what options apart from him do we have?
    There’s a reason NZF got 5% !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Peter Freedman (127 comments) says:

    I have no time for Winston Peters. He is politics at its very worst.

    Mind you, if Labour and National are politics at its best, boy, have we got problems!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Peter Freedman (127 comments) says:


    If you are looking for a Kiwi who is both neutral on this subject and hasn’t had his brain removed then try a cave in Outer Mongolia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Good posts Barry and Michael.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. barry (1,233 comments) says:

    Mr Freedman –

    Hows this for starters – the treaty is a very simple elegant document that has 3 very simple to understand clauses. There is a small problem with one word between the two version about what sovereignty means and that has to be sorted out (either by maori agreeing that actually taking advantage of the availability of what the society as a whole brings them is pretty good and thus acknowledging the government is sovereign – or they have their sovereignty – Im not sure where though – maybe Tama Itis territory….– and they pay their own way. I think that’s a no brainer)

    And the rest of us get on with life and recognise that the Westminster system that we have is actually pretty good.

    As a country we cannot afford the luxury and the waste of resources (time, people, money) that go into this never ending waste that is the bi-cultural gravy train is. It has nothing to develop the country and in fact is helping turn this country into a place of division and child abuse and political poverty.

    But the group that is the terrible twelve wont be thinking that way – they will be looking to expand this mess that we have got ourselves into.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. krazykiwi (8,229 comments) says:

    Peters lies that it is all about the Treaty.

    Lies? Really? I don’t like Peters, but even lying, cheating scumbags should be allowed an opinion!.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. pq (728 comments) says:

    who in his right mind would want to take place in this sickening racist drivel and PC driven constitutional crap

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. pq (728 comments) says:

    get real Farrar, your next6 NZ Nat Government will have to suck NZ First or die.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wiseowl (2,282 comments) says:

    This group set up to review the constitution is a joke. National have been sucked in again over this one and the review will lead to nothing more than the further demise of a once great country.
    Taking part would be tantamount to agreeing with the need for the review and possible direction it is obviously going to take.
    Kiwis should be alarmed at what is happening here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kiwi Dave (237 comments) says:

    In view of the massively unrepresentative nature of the review panel, I wonder if it’s been set up deliberately this way to fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. John Ansell (873 comments) says:

    The racial representation of the Panel tells you everything you need to know about this National-Maori jackup:

    5 Europeans, representing 68% of New Zealanders.
    5 Maori, representing 15% of New Zealanders.
    1 Pacific Islander.
    1 Asian.

    Anyone spot the unfairness here?

    As if that isn’t racist enough, most of the Europeans have been hand-picked by Sharples and Key for their pro-Maori bias – like Michael Cullen and Deborah Coddington.

    In a recent email exchange with Coddington, I asked her whether the 85% of New Zealanders who were not Maori could count on her to stand up for their rights.

    The former ACT champion of fairness repeatedly ignored the question.

    I told her I had been studying the Treaty intensively over the past year and had a great deal of evidence that a massive deception campaign had been waged by the elite (brown and white) to brainwash New Zealanders with a false version of our history.

    Was this fearless investigative journalist interested in seeing that evidence?

    She was not.

    Recently I attended a Te Papa Treaty ‘Debate’.

    Now for the benefit of those beyond the beltway, I should explain that a ‘debate’ here in Wellington is a series of pompous orations where all the ‘debaters’ bravely ‘debate’ the issue from the same side. At the Treaty ‘Debate’ there were five ‘debaters’, including the chair, Dame Claudia Orange.

    (This was a wholesale improvement, I must say, on the Victoria University Climate ‘Debate’ where all ten ‘debaters’ were not-so-alarmingly united in their alarmism.)

    After this Claytons Treaty debate, I put it to the co-chair of the Constitutional Advisory Panel, Dr John Burrows, that anyone with two eyes open could see that the members of his Panel had been chosen with the expressed (make that suppressed) intention of steering the country in the direction of a Maorified Constitution.

    He struck me as a respectable man, and I didn’t want to appear rude.

    But it was all I could do to suppress my mirth when he replied, with no hint of irony, “Oh I think you’ll find (his co-chair) Steve O’Regan very fair.”

    He also took issue with my suggestion that Michael Cullen was hardly the bastion of impartiality.

    I then reminded him that Cullen was the guy who gave half a billion dollars to Tuwharetoa (for an area they were fully paid for in the 1870s), then became their agent.

    He took my point.

    “So you see, Dr Burrows, with most of your fellow panellists ready to hand over their country to the Maoristocracy, 85% of New Zealanders are going to be looking to you, and you alone, Dr Burrows, to represent their interests.

    “Can I have your assurance that should the National-Maori game plan of stacking your meetings with wailing emotional blackmailers lying about my ancestors – if that plan fails, and if you get the clear message that the vast majority of New Zealanders would really rather have a Colourblind State, will you report that to the government?”

    “Yes,” he replied with commendable promptness.

    So that was something.

    But can we be confident that the nice Dr Burrows is going to be able to withstand the wailing of the radical Ranginui Walker and the afore-mentioned make-believe Maori (31/32nds Irish) Tipene-Steve, to name but two?

    Make no mistake, this panel has been set up by the National-Maori alliance to produce a written Constitution that entrenches, not the Treaty itself, but Geoffrey Palmer’s bogus ‘principles of the Treaty’, in all New Zealand law.

    If this Panel gets its way, New Zealand as we know it will be over.

    Oh, they’ll say they’re just there to listen, of course. Just as Chris Finlayson and Tau Henare ‘listened’ to submissions on the Marine and Coastal Areas Bill (but far from quietly, or even politely, when anything was submitted that they didn’t want to hear).

    Accordingly, I have started fundraising for a major advertising campaign to tell the public the truth about Crown-Maori history.

    And, believe me, the truth will absolutely stagger you.

    You will read evidence of how our British ancestors of 1840, far from being the brutal oppressors the elite want you to believe, were a bunch of wet liberals who didn’t particularly want a new colony and bent over backwards to be fair to Maori at every stage.

    In fact, their general attitude was one of appeasement – an attitude which continues to this day.

    You will read that, far from unleashing a holocaust against the Maori, the British saved Maori from extinction at their own hands.

    (As it was, half of the race had already been killed before the British introduced the rule of law and banned cannibalism and slavery.)

    Yes, there was a holocaust in Taranaki – or, to use the non-Jewish word, genocide.

    It occurred in the 1830s, and it was caused by the Waikato Maori, who slaughtered one-third of the Taranaki Maori, enslaved another third, and caused another third to flee to Wellington.

    Of the third who fled, 900 then sailed to the Chathams and unleashed a holocaust of their own – upon the admirably peace-loving, if terminally naive, Moriori.

    So that’s two Taranaki-related holocausts by Maori on their fellow natives before the Brits had even set foot in the place.

    Yet despite all this genuine genocide, we are expected to swallow the nonsense that the invasion of Parihaka by the Crown was a holocaust, when the death toll was precisely, um.. zero.

    (A pretty hollow holocaust, I think you’ll agree, certainly by Maori standards.)

    You will read in our campaign that the so-called Land Wars were nothing of the kind. They were Sovereignty Wars, provoked by a minority of rebel tribes who decided they didn’t want the Treaty and would rather drive the Pakeha into the sea.

    (When a chief vows to kill every man, woman and child in Auckland, as Wiremu Tamihana did, what’s a responsible governor to do?)

    Think about it. Everywhere else in the world, when the state puts down a rebellion, the rebels tend to get executed.

    In New Zealand, all that happened was their land got confiscated – as was the Maori’s own tradition (only they tended to confiscate the lives of the population as well – and eat them).

    Then what happened? Soon afterwards, the Brits gave much of the confiscated land back.

    Huh? How evil is that?

    Then reparations were paid. But not by the losers to the winners. Oh no, not here. Here in topsy-turvy iwi-Kiwiland, the reparations are paid by the descendants of the winners to the descendants of the losers – over and over again, now seemingly in perpetuity!

    You will read that the New Zealand government of the early twentieth century bent over backwards to accommodate the genuine grievances of tribes who felt they’d been unfairly punished in the wars.

    You will read that the government actually put off accepting independence from Britain from 1933 until 1947 so that they could do the right thing by Maori and conclude full and final settlements.

    Yet thirty years later, even though New Zealand was now independent of the evil British who had supposedly caused Maori so much grief (despite enriching them beyond measure and causing them to live twice as long), Maori were back with their hands out for more.

    And the stupid Pakeha stupidly gave them more – and keep on giving them more – for reasons which neither party seems keen to quantify.

    It is now time for the people of New Zealand to learn the truth of what the elite (political, bureaucratic, academic, judicial and legal, as well as iwi) have been doing to brainwash their countrymen for the last 40 years.

    I thought I’d never say it, but I agree with Winston Peters. The Constitutional Review is a sham. But it’s a lot worse than that. It’s an attempt to steal our sovereignty by stealth.

    It requires a level of push-back that none of the so-called patriotic political parties or pressure groups have so far been able to achieve.

    Will a no-holds-barred ad campaign make a difference? I think it will, and I mean to prove it. I’m raising funds for a major public education campaign which will expose the Treatygate fraud of the past 40 years and demand a Colourblind State.

    If you want to help, go here:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. geo_kiwi (44 comments) says:

    Get real DPF. The Constitutional Review is a farce. As a New Zealander I don’t want a bar of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote