Poll call looms for Maori ward

Tauranga Maori are checking the numbers to decide whether a poll is necessary in relation to a Maori ward seat on Tauranga City Council.

City councillors voted unanimously against the measure in November last year.


A decision on the poll is required by this Friday.

However, the council decision can be challenged if five percent of the roll demand a poll.

The petition must be finalised and submitted by February 28, Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua Collective chairperson Puhirake Ihaka told the Tanga Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee.

'We will see what happens by this Friday,” says Puhirake.

Based on the number of electors on the 2013 roll, five per cent adds up to 4,237 voters.

If the decision is made to campaign for a poll the council has to be notified within 90 days of the notification and a poll would have to take place no later than May 21, 2015.

The outcome of any poll would be binding for the next 2 triennial elections, and cost about $170,000.

Adding a Maori ward to the city council will result in other changes. The city council will be unable to keep the existing structure of four at large and six ward representatives if ten councillors are to be retained.

The number and composition of the next council is to be considered in the representation review required to be completed by August 2015.

If the collective doesn't get the numbers to force a poll, then the issue will be re-examined in six years.

There are three Maori ward seats on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

Regional Councillor Doug Owens came out firmly in their favour when the City of New Plymouth was wrestling publicly with the same issue in December last year.

In an open letter to the New Plymouth Mayor, Doug says Maori ward seats have become an issue of political prejudice, as parties vie for the ‘prejudice vote against Maori' and their declared and accepted right to self-determination as a culture and an indigenous people.

'The essential advantage of direct representation via a ward system is the pragmatic solution to a profound political problem,” says Doug.

'That being an indifferent electorate having no interest in Maori and no guaranteed election of Maori and therefore continued poor communication and misunderstanding.

'Under wards, local Maori can select the people they want to represent them and in a competitive environment, vote for them. It is then up to these representatives to communicate with their Iwi and Hapu and bring their issues to the top table for resolution.”

The three Maori wards on the regional council have given way to greater tolerance and understanding of issues and these relationships have grown and deepened as a result of Maori representation, says Doug,

'The political prejudice that still exists in the BOP is no longer evident in the Regional Council,' he adds.

'Ratepayers can also take comfort that having three wards representing all Maori in the Waiariki Region is cost effective, as opposed to statutory boards, which are not.”

He recommends the Local Maori Ward system as the most viable political option for local New Zealand, as local government moves into the new statutory environment of Co-Governance.

The numbers presented to Tauranga City Councillors before the vote in November show Maori are projected to account for over one-quarter of the growth of the Bay of Plenty Region from 2011 to 2021.

You may also like....

86 comments

How about

Posted on 24-02-2015 09:55 | By NZgirl

a white ward seat on Tauranga City Council? Oh thats right its wrong and can't do that.


mafia

Posted on 24-02-2015 14:12 | By Captain Sensible

Can someone show me where in the 1840 treaty this was promised? Seats given to anyone because of their skin colour is what many people fought in wars AGAINST because it's racist and undemocratic. Why does TCC feel the need to pander to the local mafia?


Poll Necessary

Posted on 24-02-2015 16:08 | By Jitter

I agree a poll should be held to sort this matter out. Two additional questions should also be included. Should Tauranga also have Asian and Pacifica wards ? As we are now a multicultural nation these questions must be asked otherwise these cultures are at an immediate disadvantage.


NO !!

Posted on 24-02-2015 17:05 | By Mackka

Don't they know what 'NO' means!!! This sort of behaviour divides the country and causes racial disharmony and a building resentment.


what next

Posted on 24-02-2015 17:52 | By roseh

I thought we were all one why does there have to be a Maori seat Surley they can stand in any seat and get voted in by the people


right

Posted on 24-02-2015 17:56 | By dumbkof2

nzgirl you are so right that would be racist


THEY AIN'T GOT THE GUTS

Posted on 24-02-2015 20:32 | By ROCCO

What don't these bozos know about the numbers either they have 5% or 4237 electors on a petition to call a poll or they don't.Hopefully they have got the numbers because there will be a 80% backlash and that will settle the question once and for all. No race-based representation either elected or unelected.


Wisechief

Posted on 24-02-2015 20:55 | By Wise Chief

Strange perspective coming from some naive & biased commentators here who don't seem to understand we the local direct descendants who are Maori still live locally not having anywhere else to go happen to be children of those who discovered these lands and many others scattered around Pacific Rim & beyond in the days when you Anglophiles and other ethnics where wearing skins and eating each other. Stories of disciples like Bartholomew & others deserve to be read of these early times when taming hairy barbarians. So how come you all want a vote in what happens around BOP yet seek to deny us local Maori same?? Can one of you geniuses explain this conundrum or is it just to damn hard for you to rustle up a normal neuron or two to do so? Lonely upstairs huh? Likely some of you toffs came from the Motherland where Lizzy reign


NEVER

Posted on 24-02-2015 23:38 | By The Caveman

It's all one electorate. One person one vote. And what qualifies a person as a Maori? And I agree, how about a ward for each of those of Asian and Pacifica , Indian, Scottish, Irish and what ever other "mob" that happen to live in Tauranga. I suspect that the Asian, Pacifica, Indian residents have a better claim to representation than some of the "band wagon" Maori


Political Prejudice.

Posted on 25-02-2015 13:31 | By robin bell

As usual the same gaggle of bigots express their prejudice without engaging any brain they MAY have. Captain "not so" should read Article 2. "Jitter" should consult The Tga. District Multicultural Society who list five objectives, one being The recognition of the place of Maori as Tangata whenua and the SPECIAL place Maori hold in New Zealand via the Treaty.It seems our new arrivals are far less prejudiced than some. As usual the loudmouthed bigot rocco gets mixed up,"they aint got the GUTS" surely is in reference to his own misfortune. Robin Bell.


Not such a 'Wise Chief'

Posted on 25-02-2015 13:56 | By Mackka

Quote from 'Wise Chief'- "So how come you all want a vote in what happens around BOP yet seek to deny us local Maori same?? " Oh not so wise chief - didn't you know that Maori have the same voting rights as everyone else? Another 'Wise Chief' quote from above - "Can one of you geniuses explain this conundrum or is it just to damn hard for you to rustle up a normal neuron or two to do so? Lonely upstairs huh? Likely some of you toffs came from the Motherland where Lizzy reign" There is no need to classify other commentators in this light when you would be last in line to 'rustle up a neuron or two' ! You have made a fool of yourself in your ignorance.


@ robin bell

Posted on 25-02-2015 16:58 | By Captain Sensible

Hahahaha I said the 1840 treaty, not the maori PC reinterpretation in the 1970s. Quote to me where the 1840 treaty says maori are 'more equal' than all other kiwis.


Mt Maunganui/Papamoa Council By Election

Posted on 25-02-2015 20:12 | By Jitter

Lets take this argument a step further. Why wasn't Matua Parkinson elected to council ? I am sure this will come up at some time in the argument for a "Maori" ward. I was prepared to vote for him and give him a go. However with the exception of two occaisions that I saw in the media, whenever the candidates were interviewed and questioned on specific matters Parkinson was not contactable, and each time he was the only one. Pretty poor for a prospective councillor.


The Treaty Again

Posted on 25-02-2015 20:27 | By Jitter

Robyn Bell states "The recognition of the place of Maori as Tangata whenua and the SPECIAL place Maori hold in NZ via the TreatY". I have read over and over again various versions of the Treaty and nowhere can I find anywhere any mention of Maori holding a special place in NZ. The versions I have read cover all residents of NZ at the time. Wise Chief has got his hisory screwed up again. When Maori or whoever were supposedly discovering NZ (1280-1300) and were still in grass skirts eating each other, the Anglophiles and other European ethnics, Chinese and Japanese, were by comparison relatively sophisticated, wearing proper clothes and living in wooden or stone houses with their warriors wearing iron armour, riding horses which pulled crude coaches and using bows and arrows. So his remark about wearing skins and eating each other is 1000 years out.


Poor communication and misunderstanding.

Posted on 25-02-2015 20:39 | By robin bell

Captain "not so" once again shows his ignorance of the Treaty. I suggest you contact Peter Dey, he has just systematically destroyed your mentor and colleague crazyhorse/Baker.The one N.Z.foundation and their pseudo intellectual amateur book worms.Ask him to explain Tino Rangatiratanga. Its very enlightening. Robin Bell.


Jitter

Posted on 26-02-2015 07:40 | By Mackka

Well said re Parkinson! If by some remote chance a maori ward was established - the likelihood of that representative turning up at meetings/functions etc would be a moot point. They just see an opportunity to perhaps get another snout in the ratepayers trough!


Beware what you ask for

Posted on 26-02-2015 13:44 | By jimmyant

There has been a fairly clear direction from the council vote - from people democratically voted to represent us ALL. NO Most sensible non-maori understand that there some genuine grievances that have historically existed and support the move to remedy them. That support will be put at risk by Maori pressing for any non-democratic representation in any way on any level. This divisiveness subtly but effectively pushes any sympathy for their cause further away. The ultimate result of continued racially biased demands will be a massive backlash from the disadvantaged - in this case - non maori


The problem jimmyant

Posted on 26-02-2015 16:59 | By robin bell

is that Maori can never be democratically elected in order to protect their interests at local body level. Inevitably they have to rely on non Maori "goodwill" as you so rightly point out, this has often led to abuses. To claim Maori ward seats are non democratic is absolute nonsense. Democracy is far more flexible than you think, that is its great strength. If non Maori see a threat in token representation for Maori,it is surely a reflection of uninformed prejudice. Robin Bell.


YOU ASKED FOR IT WOBBIN

Posted on 26-02-2015 19:00 | By crazyhorse

I was going to take a break but just for Rob and Pete, Dey keeps misleading everyone on the meaning of Te tino rangitiratanga as the unqualified exercise of chieftainship,the British made it very plain that there would be no more cannibalism, slavery, or infanticide, these were all unqualified exercises of chieftainship,they had to stop, the TOW was a european document wanted by maori not the poms, article 2 of the treaty simply say's England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes, all the people of nz the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property, people can try and change the treaty but, truth is it only mattered what in meant in 1840 not when Kawharu had a claim to settle and needed to "tinker" with it!.


The former President,

Posted on 27-02-2015 10:55 | By robin bell

of the New Plymouth Grey "Power" in a recent debate attended by over 400 people, likened Maori to "pigs". His address was greeted by an overwhelming silence and disbelief. Clearly crazy/Baker has had some influence on this minority. The real message is, TO DENY REPRESENTATION TO THE FOUNDING PARTNER IN N.Z.is TO DESTROY DEMOCRACY. Maori representing Maori is no threat to anyone or anything. Robin Bell.


Special seats

Posted on 02-03-2015 18:05 | By YOGI BEAR

Where these are based on race, colour, how many Waitangi scammy claims have been put in or the likes means they are a breach of the Human Rights Act, plain and simple.


white supremacist vote

Posted on 05-03-2015 08:32 | By crazyhorse

This is how pathetic this is becoming. Have a good think about what is said here, we are getting into "holocaust" territory again. {Iwi leader says no to white supremacist vote A Taranaki Maori leader wants the New Plymouth District Council to challenge the need to hold a referendum on whether it can create a Maori ward. Grant Knuckey says the referendum, which was triggered by a petition opposing the Maori seat plan, could turn the city into the centre of white supremacy in the South Pacific}. What next, 2 prime minister's?, another "unelected" shall we call it a board in parliament?.


Indigenous Peopele

Posted on 09-03-2015 15:17 | By Jitter

Robin Bell and Peter Dey put a great deal of faith in Janet Wilmhurst's research into "Maori' being the first inhabitants of NZ as she found no evidence to the contrary. Stephen Inwood British historian has written "A history of London" from AD 43 to the present day based on fact and documentary evidence not based on legend, myth and fairy story which is changed almost daily to suit the situation. In relation to churches from AD 43 to 1066 he states "No Roman churches have yet been found in London, and this is a reminder that non discovery and non existence are by no means the same thing." So just because no concrete evidence has been found of NZ inhabitants before "Maori" doesn't mean there weren't any. This book indicates also that NZ history whether "Maori or European is just a drop in the bucket of world history.


lack of faith in Janet Wilmhurst's research

Posted on 09-03-2015 22:35 | By YOGI BEAR

Peter and Robin's over zealous faith in Janet is seriously flawed, she was provided with the desired information, the draft of what her research was to be and a promises of a cheque if she rubber stamped it ASAP. That tends to clarify things a bit and explains Robin's and Peter's feverish faith in it.


Poshs caught short ...

Posted on 09-03-2015 22:40 | By YOGI BEAR

ROCCO 24/2/2015, looks like you are right, hit the nail on the head there, the part Maori brigade have not lodged a poll application with signatures so that is as dead as a dodo bird. Now lets see what the two favourite Poshs Robin and Peter have to say about that.


Indigenous People.

Posted on 10-03-2015 11:26 | By robin bell

Once again "jitter" desperately tries to discredit the indigenous status of Maori. There is no legend, myth or fairy story involved in this status. There is no change to this proven history.NONE. Abel Tasman,James Cook and many other reliable sources confirm Maori occupation. Sorry "jitter",after exhaustive study Janet Wilmshurst and a highly qualified international team of experts, found absolutely no evidence of any previous occupations. The indigenous status of Maori was recognised by the British now the United Nations.Until you and your few friends produce concrete evidence to the contrary,your bleating is worthless. Robin Bell.


Poshs people?

Posted on 10-03-2015 15:09 | By YOGI BEAR

Part Maori are not Indigenous People, Moriori were here before them. So on all counts no way are part Maori Indigenous. There were at least 7 other very different cultures in NZ prior and at least 3 were here when General Zheng He dropped of a few surplus part Maori/ex Islanders.


Who are Indigenous People?

Posted on 10-03-2015 15:13 | By YOGI BEAR

Well it is certainly not part Maori, so Robin that means that falls into the category of "part Maori myths, legends and storytelling" as Peter, your mate, so well and accurately defined recently. The two of you are diverging in comments and that is understandable when you are making it up as you go, you know a myth type story from Robin. Perhaps I could help you, when you write put "Myth" at the start then we all are clear about what is about to follow. If it is not a myth then I will let you know ok?


Janet Wilmhurst's research

Posted on 10-03-2015 15:16 | By YOGI BEAR

It would be an insult to Peter and his very accurate description of part Maori myths and legends and story telling to even give Janet that kind of status. Her rubber stamper work must rate as something less than a part Maori myths and legends and story telling otherwise the situation will be overstated and that wouldn't be good now would it.


Wrong Again

Posted on 10-03-2015 15:41 | By Jitter

Whoops I have really upset Bell this time. I am certainly not trying to discredit the "indigenous status of Maori". All I am saying is that the evidence of people or peoples living in NZ before the coming of Maori must not be discounted just because evidence of this has not been found or has been hidden when it has been brought to light. There is a moratorium on the publishing of evidence of other people living in NZ until 2063. Unfortunately by then most of this evidence will have been systematically destroyed by the people who have the most to lose. I would like to see a second investigation done by a truly independant team of historians who have not been prompted in any way. "Maori" are NZers so have the same rights as everyone else so what is all the fuss about.


.

Posted on 14-03-2015 12:35 | By robin bell

Implications that "evidence" will be destroyed by those with the most to lose is a very naive subterfuge on your part. Whilst there are interesting sites around N.Z none have any proven value to date. ALL of the so-called evidence you refer to has been rejected by various experts. To claim these experts are part of a long established and continuing conspiracy, is pathetic. Many have been shown to be of early Maori origin. Most are in very remote areas,as one example the Waipua forest.Already ecological disaster has hit this area, imagine the fate of the Kauri if people tramped the forest looking for old rocks and bones,that actually prove nothing, and have no effect on established theories. Robin Bell.


Myths by RB

Posted on 14-03-2015 19:34 | By YOGI BEAR

Easy Robin, why is it that there are 115 special prohibition orders issued relating to 115 sites/objects in NZ that are of extremely significant archeological interest. No information is officially available until after 2065, why is that? These orders are put in place by Maori Affairs part Maori site preservation division, but actually they are the non part Maori site destroyers. Anyway the reason for the 115 prohibition orders is to keep the secret, the secret of the truth of part Maori in NZ not being the indigenous people that some of their number claim to be. Figure it out Robin, you have nothing to hide right? get the orders lifted so the public at large can make a fully informed decision.


Wisechief

Posted on 14-03-2015 21:28 | By Wise Chief

From what I was told by my ''olds'' who possessed a phenomenal knowledge pool between them, said we Maori have been hit by four or five major catastrophic events since arrival around 5000 or more years ago. Lets not forget we were and still are masters of the oceans above and below. Thus tread carefully for you know so little. The fact they had accurate Maori calendar and star maps in their heads which gave them sophisticated agriculture which I might add started in Egypt. An important and known fact most detractors here love to ignore they preferring their own contrived biased theories which in turn speaks volumes of their primitive arrogant ignorant mindset. Grow up and accept what is known facts not theories just to bolster racial bias against your fellow man. Surviving fast accelerating climate change will require our full mutual cooperation. Get with the program.


evidence

Posted on 15-03-2015 09:42 | By YOGI BEAR

yeah all ready happened, done and busted. There is a special unit within the part Maori affairs department (very sadly funded by taxpayers unwittingly) that go around NZ and try to find ancient sites. If it is part Maori then they take a look, if it is per part Maori then it is dis-assembled not to be seen again, if it cant be then it gets one of those special protection orders, come back in 2065


Quote: Sir Apirana Ngata

Posted on 15-03-2015 11:37 | By YOGI BEAR

Was clear that the land confiscations could not be objected to in light of the treaty. He wrote in 1922: - "Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This itself is a Maori custom - revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the treaty." Seems perfect common sense to me, so why has the Waitangi Tribunal troughers exist now?


Robin everything?

Posted on 15-03-2015 15:34 | By YOGI BEAR

The words that Sir Apirana Ngata has said so well and clearly perhaps could also have included one more important word, Treason.


YOGI BEAR most Maori leaderes disagreed

Posted on 15-03-2015 19:47 | By Peter Dey

Sir Apirana was entitled to his individual opinion, but most Maori leaders disagreed that confiscation of Maori land was fair. Confiscation clearly breached the rights of individual citizenship guaranteed to Maori by the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi Tribunal and also reputable historians have confirmed this. Sir Apirana's opinion proves nothing. It was only his opinion.


most Maori leaderes disagreed?

Posted on 15-03-2015 22:48 | By YOGI BEAR

Of course they do because they all have there own hand out sucking of the NZ taxpayer. That is called a vested interest, they stand to benefit personally (some part Maori anyway) from promoting the personally desired result.


YOGI BEAR Sir Apirana Ngata got voted out

Posted on 16-03-2015 08:46 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR, Sir Apirana Ngata did have an illustrious career but he did get voted out by Maori voters, so Maori leaders in his time did not always agree with him. The reason they did not agree with him is that when he said that confiscation was just like Maori custom he was being ridiculous because the Maori custom of utu had been replaced by British justice. Every historian and the Waitangi Tribunal now know that what Sir Apirana Ngata said about confiscation was nonsense. YOGI BEAR is repeating this nonsense. A person who repeats nonsense is simply clueless. Just like claiming the nonsense that somebody else wrote Janet Wilmshurst's report from her scientific research showing that there is no evidence of anybody living in New Zealand before Maori arrived about 1250AD.


2065 and all that,

Posted on 16-03-2015 09:43 | By robin bell

The one N.Z.foundation persists in disseminating falsehoods. Prohibited sites are to protect Wahi Tapu sites all over N.Z. The claim that these prohibitions are to "hide" proof of pre Maori occupation is childish,pathetic,deliberate and false. In any event Maori occupied these islands when the British annexed them. The British recognised this when they proposed and signed the treaty. All talk of "other" occupations is irrelevant to the Maori position as co signatories. It is irrefutable that the Polynesian people settled the Pacific, from tropic to tropic,while we were still coast hugging. Robin Bell.


It is very easy to judge

Posted on 16-03-2015 11:00 | By Fonzie

Actions of a fledgling government barely 20 years old with very little resources to pay for bringing troops halfway around the world to put down an armed rebellion against their legitimate authority from the comfort of our situation today How exactly were these costs to be met if not from the perpetrators who had nothing of any value other than some of their land the vast majority of which was returned to them anyway Check the figures


YOGI BEAR, find some evidence

Posted on 16-03-2015 11:02 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR believes that the public is excluded from a number of sites around New Zealand because they contain evidence of ancient settlement in New Zealand. There are millions of sites around New Zealand where ancient settlement could have occurred. YOGI BEAR should explore those sites and when he finds some evidence he should let everybody know. Until then his theories are just fantasy.


childish,pathetic,deliberate and false?

Posted on 16-03-2015 15:04 | By YOGI BEAR

So you know "exactly" what these prohibition orders hide from the law abiding public? I bet you don't. In fact few part Maori sites are protected, they actually hide non part Maori sites from public view. So have another wee think about the motivations here, if nothing to hide then why the need to do this? I think you will find that part Maori leaders do know the real reasons and are desperate to keep it all under wraps until all the treaty troughers have become sated and bloated many fold. Then in their consequent slumber they maybe will let go to reveal the truth of the Rort upon the NZ taxpayers and the manipulation of the Treaty real meaning for self interest, self gain.


In a recent T.V.

Posted on 17-03-2015 08:04 | By robin bell

documentary the caves said to contain "evidence" of pre Maori drawings was examined by various experts on camera. All agreed the ancient drawings were that of early Maori. These caves are protected (as in countries all around the globe)in order to protect from destruction. The Te Roroa report was a damning litany of such destruction in the Waipua Forest. Rock formations,dwelling ruins,rock drawings etc are all evidence of early Polynesian settlement, REPEATED ALL AROUND THE PACIFIC. Robin Bell.


What part Maori leaders disagreed?

Posted on 17-03-2015 10:40 | By YOGI BEAR

Ok Peter how about you provide a list and evidence of that, or is it all made up you know like a Peter type Myth and legend type of thing?


YOGI BEAR, we are not part-Kiwis

Posted on 17-03-2015 11:37 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR, there is no such thing as a part-New Zealander. My Scottish ancestry makes no difference. I am a New Zealander. There is no such thing as a part-Maori. Anybody with Maori ancestry is Maori, and that is confirmed by the 1974 Maori Affairs Amendment Act. People like YOGI BEAR who use the term part-Maori know that the term is being used only as abuse . They are pretending that the facts that contradict them do not exist. YOGI BEAR has no credibility because he regularly pretends that contradicting facts do not exist.


Fonzie, most stolen Maori land was not returned

Posted on 17-03-2015 14:55 | By Peter Dey

Fonzie says that the vast majority of confiscated Maori land was returned. This is totally not correct. Treaty settlements have paid less than 10% compensation overall. The Tauranga settlement is typical. The Government confiscated 20,000 hectares of Maori land in Tauranga. This was land not returned. This is now worth about $500 million at $25,000 a hectare for undeveloped land. The settlement received by local Maori was about $50 million. Local Maori have received less than 10% of the value confiscated. The Government has still got $450 million in the bank wrongly taken from Maori. The Government has admitted in the Treaty settlement that the land was wrongly taken. The Government, on behalf of Pakeha taxpayers, is still treating Maori unfairly.


Evidence

Posted on 17-03-2015 16:53 | By YOGI BEAR

Here we go folks, I am sure the Peter and Robin "show" will moan endlessly about this bit of information, but the "facts" are unavailable except but accusations of "racist", right. Actual archaeological and radiocarbon dating evidence shows that the ash eruptions from Kaharoa (on the Pyes Pa road from Rotorua to Tauranga) occurred between about 1400 AD. Below (i.e. before 1400) this ash layer there is no sign of part Maori. Above this ash layer there are numerous signs of part Maori occupation. Therefore it is fairly clear that part Maori arrived in NZ at the time of this ash eruption but not before. Equally evidence below the ash layer shows evidence of non part Maori. There we have it, plain and simple, now ... folks here comes the racist comments from Peter and Robin, there is nothing else for them to say.


YOGI BEAR, your land claims do not make sense

Posted on 17-03-2015 17:24 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR, your claim that the Government is preventing access to 2056 early settlement sites so that people cannot find evidence of pre-Maori settlement does not make sense. To hide that amount of information there has to be thousands of people all over New Zealand, including members of Parliament from both National and Labour, all involved in a conspiracy of silence to keep information hidden. You are claiming that all of these people in this conspiracy are doing it for the benefit of Maori tribes even though most of them are not Maori. The reason most people do not take this theory seriously is that it is not seriously credible. In fact it is seriously not credible.


New Discovery

Posted on 17-03-2015 20:19 | By Jitter

I read in the last week that a university team has excavated a habitation site on one of NZs offshore islands. They found seal and bird bones and a weapon or tool made from obsidion. The interesting point is though that the site has been dated to 100 years prior to the known arrival of Maori ie 1150 - 80. The team is going back to search for other sites on that island and adjacent islands. The team has made no comment on who the people might have been at this stage. Does this mean that Maori will now have to rewrite their history to make it fit in with the new find ? What will be the reaction if it is proven not to be a Maori site ?


YOGI BEAR, there is no non-Maori Kaharoa evidence

Posted on 17-03-2015 21:31 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR, there is no evidence of non-Maori settlement below Kaharoa volcanic ash from Mount Tarawera, which erupted about 1350AD. YOGI BEAR made that up. The only evidence of early settlement in New Zealand from 1250AD is by Maori.


Jitter, recent offshore excavations are not pre-Maori

Posted on 17-03-2015 21:48 | By Peter Dey

The recent excavation of moa bones in Maori ovens in offshore islands have not been dated as pre-Maori. Check the facts, Jitter.


part Scottish

Posted on 18-03-2015 00:44 | By YOGI BEAR

now are Maori or part Maori, sounds like to me that Peter has admitted that he is not Maori, he is part Maori and part Scottish and most likely a bit of part Irish to. So that makes him a "Kiwi" and not a Maori, is that what you are trying to say? You've said if there is "any" Maori then you are "Maori", now that is just not true, you are denying your true ancestry and your 'other' true and real indigenous heritage, Scottish for example. What you ar also saying is that if I had 0.0000000000001% Maori then I am not part Maori but I am 'Maori', come on Peter no wonder the Treaty claims all look so ridiculous to most 'Kiwi's'.


Streaching the truth by yogi bare

Posted on 18-03-2015 08:00 | By robin bell

Kaharoa erupted in 1314 not 1400. Maori are thought to have arrived between 1250-1280, 34-64 years before the eruption. Perhaps our clever "expert" can explain, how a few hundred people could have covered all of N.Z. in such a short time? He will have a befuddled explanation, that's for sure. Robin Bell.


Wishful thinking,

Posted on 18-03-2015 12:29 | By robin bell

"jitter" has been seduced by the one N.Z.foundation. It is not Maori who "change" dates to suit it is scientific research. Ross Baker, self appointed guru and his local support group yogi bare make lots and lots of claims. One to ponder is Bakers claim that Oak trees around Auckland must have been planted by pre Maori settlers, because of their size when eradicated by D.O.C. I have a northern hemisphere tree, a Redwood from N.America. It is six metres at the base and 50 mtres tall. It is 35 years old. They grow six times quicker in N.Z. than in America.What that means "jitter" is, its possible the same applies to oak trees. Oh!!! dear. Robin Bell.


YOGI BEAR, Tribes not individuals make Treaty claims

Posted on 18-03-2015 12:56 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR, people with a very small percentage of Maori ancestry do not make Treaty claims, Maori tribes do. If Maori tribes want to share their benefits with people who have only a small percentage of Maori ancestry that takes nothing away from YOGI BEAR at all. People choose what part of their ancestry they think is important to them. People who choose to be Maori do not deny the other parts of their ancestry. A Maori with a British passport is Maori and British, not part-Maori and part-British. By law people with Maori ancestry are Maori. The term part-Maori is used only by ignorant people as a term of abuse.


Panick setting in for Robin

Posted on 18-03-2015 13:37 | By YOGI BEAR

The science says the eruption was between 1400-1410AD, that is the one I am referring to. Of course that is verified and confirmed by a real peer review, In addition other scientist (real ones) have also come to the same conclusion. So Robin what are you talking about, you use words like "thought to have arrived..." not that just does not stack up at all. The reason of course is that you are blindly relying on THAT lady who shall remain nameless who rubber stamped her paymasters findings. Robin, I can see a lot out doubt in what you are writing, great to see.


YOGI BEAR, Sir Apirana did not make sense

Posted on 18-03-2015 13:43 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR and many others like to quote Sir Apirana Ngata when he said that Government confiscation of Maori land was justified. They ignore the reasons that Sir Apirana gave to support his view. Sir Apirana said that the Government did not have to obey the law. He was not talking sense because British law requires everybody, including the Government, to obey the law. British law was what Maori signed up for when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi, so when Sir Apirana said that the Government could ignore British law he was simply ignorant on this particular issue. Under British law nobody is above the law.


YOGI BEAR, Janet Wilmshurst prepared her own report

Posted on 18-03-2015 15:43 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR likes to claim that Janet Wilmshurst did not write her own research report of her radiocarbon dating that shows that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand about 1250 AD. He has to be claiming that about 100 scientists who carbon dated about 1400 settlement sites throughout East Polynesia then ignored Janet while she changed all their results and published these false results on the internet where they could all read them. Enough said. A YOGI BEAR fantasy.


Recent Discovery in Offshore Islands.

Posted on 18-03-2015 17:10 | By Jitter

Sorry Mr Dey there was no mention of Moa bones in the very recent discovery on off shore islands. Mentioned were seal bones and from memory small birds. Mr Bell I know nothing of the "One NZ Foundation" but have based my latest comments on the report made by the university team that found this new undisturbed habitation site on an offshore island. It just shows that Janet Wimhurst did not do a very good or thorough job in her investigations.If this and other sites which this team hopes to discover, prove to be other than Maori that will really put the cat amongst the Dey and Bell pigeons. Robin Bell keeps changing the arrival date of Maori to suit his arguments. He now says they arrived 1250-1280, Janet Wilmhurst says 1280-1300. So make up your mind, which is it to be ?


Totally Confused

Posted on 18-03-2015 17:15 | By Jitter

Robin Bell is totally confused as I have never mentioned trees in any of my comments!!!! Perhaps he is getting a bit old for this lark.


YOGI BEAR, how do you falsifiy scientific results?

Posted on 18-03-2015 18:12 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR should explain how Janet Wilmshurst might have falsified her scientific results when she claimed that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand. Fieldworkers had to collect twigs from 1400 settlement sites from Hawaii, Rapanui, Tahiti, Rarotonga, Tonga, Samoa, and New Zealand and send them in sealed bags to the radiocarbon testing laboratory in Wellington. So Janet somehow had to get hold of all these sealed bags and somehow replace them with 1400 sealed bags that she had prepared with different twigs (from all over the Pacific). That sounds rather difficult. Maybe Janet took the carbon-dating results from the laboratory, that are printed out on special sheets, and printed out her own sheets of results. Except that she would have to get somebody in the laboratory to do that for her with false twigs, and not tell anybody else. Fantasy, I think YOGI BEAR.


In your DREAMS,

Posted on 18-03-2015 19:54 | By robin bell

yogi. Last year 2014 was the 700th birthday of Kaharoa. A carbonised log of Tanekaha was found in the pyroclastic flow at Crater Road,by D.J. LOWE and ADRIAN PITTARI Uni of Waikato. Five samples were removed for High Precision Carbon Dating. The calender date determined for the eruption of Kaharoa is 1314 (+or- 12)A.D. Hogg (2003) used an alternative Bayesian program OxCal, and produced a near identical result, 1305-1325 A.D. They also found evidence of Maori settlement just below the ash layer. You really need to start reading some proper history, try Te Ara they also give the date as 1314, no mention of a 1400 explosion. Robin Bell.


No confusion Jitter,

Posted on 19-03-2015 08:06 | By robin bell

just a very complete understanding of the agenda of the one N.Z.foundation and other equally subversive groups. Personally I couldn't give a "tinkers toss" what you say. When your comments are always laced with prejudice. The oak tree example, is one of hundreds of similar examples of such misinformation. I suspect your seeming sympathy for this, means you support it. Robin Bell.


YOGI BEAR, science depends on honesty

Posted on 19-03-2015 08:51 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR accuses scientists of producing dishonest results to support the now accepted belief that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand about 1250AD, and that there were no other settlers here before then. YOGI BEAR is in denial over the fact that science depends on scientists being honest. Every part of modern science and technology that has moved us forward has resulted from honest scientific research. Dishonest research achieves nothing, and because research is always published for everybody to check, dishonesty is futile. Scientific dishonesty will eventually get found out. YOGI BEAR's accusations of scientific dishonesty are desperate fiction. YOGI BEAR should accept the fact that Maori are indigenous to New Zealand, and that he has no evidence to prove otherwise.


Peter and Robin

Posted on 19-03-2015 12:34 | By YOGI BEAR

Read it, saw it, done and correct, can only say the carbon dating results are conclusive and I am right as a result. There are DEFINITELY no part Maori anything below the layer of ash. There also game over, you lose again. PS Janet Wilmshursts completely discredited report (she signed it only) can not be replied on, it is mischievous indeed to even say her name.


Maori representation for our benefit

Posted on 19-03-2015 14:37 | By JohnHeb

All very interesting. The real issue is that since I arrived in Tauranga 22 years ago only one councillor has had any involvement in te ao Maori. None of our councillors, who made their decision for reasons of harmony have any involvement with marae, have any involvement with Maori economies, or speak Te Reo Maori. They make decisions which affect Maori with no input from Maori. This is not about skin colour, but a recognition that a sizeable percentage of our population operates out of a different world view using different social structures. With the Treaty Settlements the local iwi will be an increasingly important economic force in Tauranga, as they now are in the South Island. It would greatly benefit our city for representation from nga iwi o Tauranga to be present at the decision making table. What are we so scared of?


New Findings - Peter Dey

Posted on 19-03-2015 14:52 | By Jitter

If the recent site found on an offshore island does not pre date Maori, why do both the reports I read in the press state that the site predates the coming of Maori "by about 100 years"? You appear to have very bad tunnel vision.


how do you falsifiy scientific results?

Posted on 19-03-2015 15:50 | By YOGI BEAR

There are two known ways to do that Peter: - 1. Get Janet Wilmshurst on the case and 2. Call it a Myth, legend or a case of storytelling.


The Games, people play,

Posted on 20-03-2015 07:49 | By robin bell

JohnHeb is correct. Problem is JohnHeb the "World view" you speak of is not recognised by an alarming group, particularly in Tga. In fact they attempt to corrupt history, in order to influence as many as possible. Do we ignore them? or do we challenge their provocation? Sadly one comment does not check their obsessive mania, best illustrated by YOGI BARE. Robin Bell.


New findings jitter

Posted on 20-03-2015 10:05 | By robin bell

What you need to do is verify your readings. It's very easy, just put up the source, then we can all read it, if not they are no more valid than your Wellington "letters". Lets see what your made of "jitter". Robin Bell.


YOGI BEAR, caught out again

Posted on 20-03-2015 10:38 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR is unable to say how Janet Wilmshurst might have falsified her scientific research because it would clearly be impossible. Janet had fieldworkers collecting twigs from 1400 settlement sites throughout East Polynesia. These twigs were sent in sealed bags to a radiocarbon testing laboratory in New Zealand. The laboratory produces authorised result sheets for the tests. There is no way that Janet could have replaced 1400 bags of twigs with false twigs that she had prepared or that she could have produced 1400 false results sheets from a laboratory that she did not run. Quite simply radiocarbon dating shows that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand and there was nobody settled here before them.


Jitter, give us a newspaper reference and quote

Posted on 20-03-2015 13:06 | By Peter Dey

Jitter says that a newspaper reports an offshore island settlement site that pre-dates Maori settlement by about 100 years. This seems very strange. Jitter should give us more information. It seems very much like more half-truth.


Well done Peter,

Posted on 20-03-2015 14:25 | By robin bell

as Sir Ed said, "we knocked the ba****d off".Proves the point,In the the end the truth will out. Crazy's gone yogi's gone, who's next? yeah! I know they'll be back. Can't wait. Regards, Robin Bell.


Peter Dey - Robin Bell

Posted on 20-03-2015 16:03 | By Mackka

It is easy to ignore an article that does not see things your way. Even when the truth is staring you in the face! Peter - you are querying "Jitter's" source re Early NZ settlement. Well - it was actually a Sunlive story and neither you or Robin have replied to comments put to you in that article. Funny that you both missed it! Look up the article titled "Early Human Settlement Found" - dated Friday 13th March 2015 10.30am.


Thanks Mackka, but Maori arrived about 750 years ago

Posted on 20-03-2015 22:05 | By Peter Dey

The article about excavation by Auckland University on Great Mercury Island estimates the age of settlement at about 600 years ago. Janet Wilmshurst's research estimates the date of Maori arrival in New Zealand at about 1250AD, 750 years ago, the Mercury Island settlement was about 150 years after Maori first arrived.


Yet another reference for Peter

Posted on 21-03-2015 16:37 | By YOGI BEAR

Perhaps have a look at this Peter (maybe even Robin), just one more reason why p[art Maori wanted a treaty ASAP ... Te Whero Whero, later Maori "king", personally butchering more than 150 helpless captives by clubbing them to death and only stopping when his arm got tired. "Google" Pukerangiora Pa and the grisly details are all there.


mackka

Posted on 21-03-2015 16:53 | By YOGI BEAR

The "Peter Dey - Robin Bell" show have the ability to ignore completely everything and anything that does not fit perfectly with the pre decided ideas and views. Anyone saying anything different is a racist and anti part Maori.


Jitter, Auckland students found no pre-Maori relics

Posted on 21-03-2015 18:32 | By Peter Dey

Jitter appears to be referring to the archaeology dig by Auckland University students on Great Mercury Island when he refers to evidence of pre-Maori settlement. This was reported by Sun Live and also by Auckland University. The report did not say that the site was dated at 100 years before the arrival of Maori. The report said that the site was dated to be about 600 years old, which is not pre-Maori. Maori arrived in New Zealand about 1250AD which is about 760 years ago.


YOGI BEAR is the one ignoring valid evidence

Posted on 22-03-2015 09:39 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR has claimed (wrongly) that there is evidence of pre-Maori settlement below the 1314AD Kaharoa ash cloud. YOGI BEAR has claimed (wrongly) that Janet Wilmshurst falsified her radiocarbon evidence showing that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand. YOGI BEAR ignores the fact that he has produced no credible evidence to support his wrong claims. It is time for YOGI BEAR to stop making false claims that he has no evidence to back up.


Dear Peter

Posted on 22-03-2015 12:23 | By YOGI BEAR

Oh course, I understand now, I can't use big words, need to keep to one syllable. So here we go, at a part Maori site you would not think that there would be non part Maori items, except the odd bone or two that missed the mouths of the victors. The facts clearly say that part Maori (ex pacific Islands, ex Taiwan. Oh that's right it makes all part Maori pacific Islanders now doesn't it, perhaps that is because they are from the pacific Islands where the Pacific Island people come from. Perhaps we could change the question for Peter (maybe Robin) Tell me this ... "You 'prove' that there were never any other cultures in NZ before the pacific Islanders arrived around 1400. That means I want proof that "NO ONE" else "EVER" resided in NZ EVER" Good luck on that one. PS Janet Wilmshurst disproves your case.


Incorrect Data

Posted on 23-03-2015 16:18 | By Jitter

Messrs Dey and Bell continue to quote the incorrect date from Janet Wilmhursts research.It is only a small error but they continue to pick on the opposing view for small errors. I have the Wilmhurst report in front of me and she states that Maori arrived between "1280 -1300" and that is the way it is recorded not as our two experts insist on quoting "1250". Lets get it right. It is only 30 years difference but it may make all the difference. Has this report been edited to support the opposing view, who knows ?


Jitter, not incorrect data

Posted on 25-03-2015 13:23 | By Peter Dey

The paper published jointly by Janet Wilmshurst,Terry Hunt of the University of Hawaii, Carl Lipo of the University of California, and Atholl Anderson was titled "High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial colonization of East Polynesia". It gives the following dates for settlement of New Zealand. Page 1 gives for East Polynesia final stage settlement including New Zealand 1190-1290AD, page 2 gives 1200-1290AD, and page 6 gives New Zealand colonization as 1230-1282AD. So the first Maori settlers arrived in New Zealand about 1250AD. If Jitter disagrees he is either making his story up or he is reading the wrong paper.


Sorry Peter

Posted on 25-03-2015 15:19 | By YOGI BEAR

You have said "High-precision radiocarbon dating " sadly all of this was written for Janet, the others are completely clueless about NZ history, of course Janet is really in the same discredited category. Peter, you really know all this already yet keep on reciting verbatim the same old ... Until you are able to widen your view to the bigger picture, absorb something in fact anything new, better and verified properly then the more you keep referring to Janet and her maters wishes the less creditable both become. In fact it maybe hard to see how the level of credibility can get much less, but I can assure you it will.


Peter, it is incorrect

Posted on 25-03-2015 16:50 | By YOGI BEAR

Janet's has selectively presented data and when it does not suit her pay masters she has filled the gaps to their liking, then had it all rubber stamped as wonderful. When half the story is told then one really does get the wrong end of the stick so to speak. However I do understand why you are propagating these schemed up mis-information to date, because I understand that without these falsehoods and fabricated information to suit the desired purpose then there would be no Treaty Troughers in Wellington, right?


Unelected Unqualified and Uwanted

Posted on 25-03-2015 17:11 | By ROCCO

Lets get back on the topic -they clearly didn't have an application they didn't have the numbers and they didn't have the energy.If they had a go there would have been an 80% real Kiwi backlash and that is why they were scared witless to give it a shot.As usual all Yakety Yak no action no contribution no backbone territory.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.