Iwi leader hits back at right wing mongrelism

avatr Mana News editor Joe Trinder

Te Rarawa iwi leader Haami Piripi has hit back on Facebook at British born Muriel Newman over her degenerate views of the Treaty of Watangi.

Haami Piripi
Haami Piripi

Muriel Newman is the convener of the Anti-Maori  group NZCPR an organisation dedicated to undermining our founding National document and the suppression of indigenous rights.

The entrenched Treaty hate industry have previously bullied this iwi before when Alan Titford burnt down his own house and blamed Te Rarawa.

As an elected iwi leader in the Far North I am obliged to respond to at least some of the misconceptions promoted by Muriel Newman in last Thursday’s Age. But I am also disappointed at the ease with which her extremist views have been given prominence.


It seems that even black can be made to look like white, and her attack on iwi and their leaders must be parried just in case anybody really believes it.

The first misconception that Newman proselytizes about is the notion that Maori, as original inhabitants of this country, have either never had or been completely deprived of any historical sovereign interests we as iwi have held in this country. Notwithstanding the solo stand of her friend, the retired judge, there is already existing clear and absolute legal jurisprudence, political precedent and community vision that express a manifestation of this recognition.

For example, the New Zealand Court of Appeal, the Waitangi Tribunal (a commission of inquiry) and the 1989 Labour Government have all produced principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. All embody the concept of constitutional partnership, so that in the words of the Chief Judge Edward Durie, “… the Treaty is always speaking…” That is certainly the view that iwi Maori hold to as Treaty partners with a sacred covenant agreed to by our ancestors, in order to enable the peaceful existence of two peoples on one land.

We iwi of the Far North are part of the on-going pastoral care associated with the Treaty, along with Ngapuhi nui Tonu. And if she thinks we in Te Hiku are trouble, just wait until she bumps into Ngapuhi.

We can no longer be ignored. We are the last wellspring of resource potential in this region, and this is being complemented with innovative and useful Treaty Settlements investing in our region and our people. But the chances are that she cannot perceive this reality because Maori, and iwi, have no place in her wonderland.

Unfortunately, it is this form of right wing mongrelism that has begun to ruin this country. She thinks she exists to compete with iwi Maori… OMG! James Busby will be rolling over in his grave.
Treaties, of course, are all about compromise, collaboration and cooperation. Not sacrificing one for another. New Zealand has a poor record as a Treaty partner because of barbaric view such as hers marring our future as a united nation.

In more recent and enlightened years, New Zealand has swung its bow to a course more consistent with partnership, recognising perhaps for the first time in our colonial history the inherent value of Maori culture and history. Since forever this has historically been limited to tourist and musical novelties but even within these limited environs the value of Maori culture and indigeneity has hyrdofoiled our Aotearoa New Zealand presence on the world stage.

It is no wonder she exited national politics, holding divisive view like hers. What arrogance to criticise the Waitangi Tribunal (which is in fact a commission of inquiry) and their recommendations, which have lain unimplemented (until now) for over a decade. Her contentions deride the credence of kaumatua I have loved, and is disrespectful of every Maori that she knows.
For me the only good thing about her article was the expose on John Carter as one of her heroes, giving us an indication of how we should be voting in the upcoming election.

As for seats on the council, one only has to look back over the last 100 years to see how well the needs of Maori and iwi have been met. Or not met. Inquiries all over the country have demonstrated this, and yet someone as educated as Ms Newman still denies it in a conscious act of colonial defiance.

Back in the day they had the excuse of ignorance and archaic ideas they brought with them from England.

Today, Ms Newman has no excuse, and it is values such as hers that have become the weeds in our democratic garden which could ultimately ruin the potential of this country and make us the Zimbabwe of the Pacific.

Haami Piripi
Iwi Leader / Treaty Partner, Ahipara.

Would Newman be tolerated as a migrant in the United States criticizing and condemning the Declaration of Independence or back in her homeland slagging off the Magna Carta. Here in New Zealand these types of deranged views are encouraged.

I applaud Haami Piripi as one of the few Iwi leaders to take a strong stance against the entrenched Treaty hate industry gravy train.

  • Chuck

    The NZCPR is a right wing propaganda machine and nothing else. I joined their Facebook group looking for ‘public policy research and commentary’ and a place to debate real issues. It became very clear very quickly that it was just a front for espousing extreme right views. Needless to say I am no longer a member of that group, but that’s how they get you.

  • marcus ureilius

    Well said Haami. NZCPR – “political research” – yeah right. You would think that there would be a balanced viewpoint in such a website, but sorry, its just plain as day that there is tunnel vision for treaty bashing here. These “academics” are simply thugs.

  • Alma Rae

    I thought Newman had vanished without trace. What a shame she hasn’t.

    • Millan Ruka

      Last I recall they were living on the foreshore and seabed in their flash as “house boat shed” some on the coast

  • Ips

    Nga mihi ki a koe e Haami, challenge other iwi leaders to respond to those people

  • Ips

    mongrelism is a new word…sounds good

  • Mike Adamson

    I took the time to read Newman’s article and it initially appears to make a strong argument but it is also misleading and often completely misinformed. My issues with Newman’s arguments are threefold:

    One – Newman questions the legitimacy of the term indigenous as a reference to Maori and does this by attempting to define indigenous people and then showing how Maori don’t really fit any of her definitions sufficiently. This is not a sincere argument to begin with and becomes even less meaningful when one considers that the UN specifically uses several definitions broadly arguing that one definition for indigenous people would not possibly be able to apply to every group,

    Two – Newman questions the legitimacy of Maori sovereignty due to the fact that they arrived in waves of continual settlement and were not in New Zealand for a long time compared to other indigenous people. This line of argument entirely ignores the declaration of independence which granted independence and sovereignty to the Maori in a format that the British must acknowledge.

    Third – Newman specifically observes Maori in a genetic sense looking for some form of racial purity. This is a concept that belongs in the last century and would not be accepted by any qualified Anthropologists who overwhelmingly agree that race does not exist because humans are all one species. Instead the term ethnicity is overwhelmingly preferred and that refers (being broad once again) to cultural similarities, which is what really unites Maori as a group.

  • Harry
  • James Mau

    Disgusting! Send her back to england on a one way ticket.

    • Tarris

      Why England? If her family/people have been here 3 generations or more then she it’s ‘tangata whenua’ according to Maori custom! Maybe you should go back to Taiwan.

    • Atiria Reid

      What vetting process does our Dept of immigration have letting these low life types in!!! Oh hassel our PIs n Asians etc but let this rapihi in & give it airtime aue pokokohua

  • Merepaea Heta

    E tautoko ana nga korero a Hami. Mena koia nei ana whakaaro o ngai tatou, me hoki atu ia ki te whenua o ana tupuna korero pera ai. aini ka kite mehemea e tautoko tana iwi I a ia. kia kaha tatou o Aotearoa, kaua tukuna he korero pena hei whakaparu I a tatou.

    • Renae Maihi

      Ae tautoko. He korero kūare tana ko tērā wahine. Kuare kē.

  • Tarris

    How is it that you consider England her homeland? According to maori protocol and tradition the third generation of a people occupying a whenua are considered ‘tanga ta whenua’! Of course none of you will answer this. You’ll just bury your heads in the dirt a cry ‘racist’. This tangata whenua rule is your tradition so honour it

  • Adam Gifford

    The group Allan Titford maligned was Te Roroa, which is a hapu with Ngati Whatua connections around Waipoua. Te Rarawa is north Hokianga through to Ahipara/Kaitaia.

    • We all have strong connections iwi and whanaunga wise in the North. Mr Titfords crimes against Te Roroa affected us all. It’s pointless for a journalist to make distinctions based on ignorance. It’s bad enough that a publication like the Age can print such hate against us and think it has no effect on Northland.

  • Dawn Maraki

    I am positive that she Muriel Newman needs to educate herself, her views are unfounded and also ignorant. I would totally ignore someone as close minded, as she and anyone who would listen to that silly view may be cut from the same cloth…Muriel get your facts right because we no longer have to listen to those who do not have a clue, otherwise known as lights on nobody home.

  • Hohepa

    She looks & sounds like Pauline Hansen.

  • Tarina MacDonald

    Thank you Haami, you articlulate a very clear picture of the views of Ms Newman. I fully agree that Ms Newman and others like her grow up in this country being misinformed about the country’s origins, especially in regards to us Maori. The Eurocentrism of Ms Newman that drove the colonisation of our country over 170 yrs ago clearly is abundant in her DNA that she makes many claims that have no basis in reality, nor legality. It is fine to colonise and subjugate a people to a dominant people’s way of life and living, yet it’s not fine to comply with a legal document that was signed to co-exist and co-partner with in the same country, clearly a woman of double standards.