Since 2005 Ross has established business interests in aqua culture and fisheries development – from Morocco to Syria and Papua New Guinea. In 2015 Ross was prime speaker on sustainable fisheries as guest of the Moroccan government at CRANZ Montana ‘Sustainable Resources: Africa’ conference, and an official guest at the 2017 forum.
In 2020 Ross commenced negotiations with Russian Direct Investment Fund to secure agency of SPUTNIK V COVID vaccine for supply to New Zealand via the NZ registered company; COVAX NZR Ltd.
Since 2009 Ross has been trustee and manager of Russian owned forestry and property assets in New Zealand.
A former Member of Parliament (1987–1996) and Member and the Executive Council of New Zealand, Ross was Under Secretary (junior minister) Agriculture & Forestry; Cabinet Committee Industry & Commerce & Chair Select Committee Fisheries.
Ross Meurant was a Member of Parliament for nine years. Prior to entering parliament he was a commissioned officer in the NZ police. Subsequent to parliament, he owned equestrian facilities; was elected to local government as a councillor; consulted to several major fishing companies, was engaged by parliamentary services as adviser to Rt. Hon Winston Peters and emerged as a key figure in the Scampi Affair, which falsely alleged political corruption.
From 2004 he has lived and worked in Zimbabwe, Russia, Czech Republic and the Balkans. From 2007 he extended his business to Morocco, Syria and U.A.E.
Ross has a bachelor degree in politics and management, a master’s degree in economics, statistics, law and policy and C.O.P’s in law.
Note from Sue Reyland (Founder/Administrator)
Ross will run articles on our Website kiwisprotectingourfreedomofexpression.com
I have allocated Ross a Separate Page for your reference. Please find list of Pages
you can browse on our Website
Ross has a wealth of knowledge which will be an asset to our website & followers
Thank You Ross for approaching the team your articles will be most appreciated
TIME FOR POLICE RE CALIBRATION ….Ross Meurant:
15th March 2022
Labels: crime, Gangs, Policing reform, Ross Meurant
Problem with gangs these days – is quite different to Red Squad days.
Red Squad was not a weapon only for use against the 81 Protest movement. It was a weapon, in the words of former Auckland police assistant commissioner Graham Perry, to:
“Make Auckland safe enough for my mother to walk down Queen Street at mid-night.”
This was the Graham Perry who was my commanding officer when I was a detective on Regional Crime Squad – which operated to a similar code.
Perry was also the Officer Command of AOS when I was on that squad.
By the time I was a commissioned officer, I had very much embraced the ethos of Perry and my former CIB bosses John Hughes and Bruce Hutton:
“We (the police) run this town.”
In my day, profile cops like Hughes and Hutton and Perry – and later me – did have to deal with violence and threats.
Examples: As an inspector I was once threated at point blank range with sawn off shot gun and on another occasion shot with a sawn off from 20 meters – he missed – but was charged with attempted murder of me.
But Police in my days – were very much protected.
By that I mean, their places of residence and schools of their children, were not accessible.
Violence was directed against us as individuals – and not our families.
Well – one exception I recall- a bomb designed for the home of John Hughes was exploded on the doorstep of some poor fellow with the same name as the then, detective sergeant John Hughes.
These days, internet alone allows even the ineptest amongst us, to track down someone they don’t like.
A detective sergeant or inspector level does place such officers in leadership situations where animosity becomes personal and not just aimed at the police per se.
It takes a special kind of cop to have the ability and fortitude to confront the gangs and crime networks and an even higher level of commitment and courage, to be a leader of a squad tracking serious crime and gangs.
This ease at which a cop’s family can be tracked today, places leaders of squads like I was on – Region Crime; Drug Squad, AOS, Red Squad and police criminal intelligence units, at high risk – because they are identified either by media or appearance in Court – and can then be “tracked”.
Today I would put international drug cartel investigator, detective inspector John Sowter – a former constable on my section late 1980ies, in today’s category of high risk and at an even higher level of, courage.
He has my respect.
The solution? Arm Police 24/7?
In a recent article, Arm the Police 24/7 (1) I made a case to arm police 24/7. In reality, all front-line police are armed – they all carry guns in a cabinet in the boot of their patrol vehicles.
However, scampering to grab a firearm from the boot may well have been the time lapse which contributed to the killing of constable Matthew Hunt. (2)
In the same article (3) I did however remind readers that in over 40 cases of police shooting people, none of these cases were ever reviewed before a proper Court of Law – and that all have been sanitised in camera (that is the internal police review committee IPCA, out of public sight with no cross examination of witnesses by independent lawyers), with no prosecutions of police – even for manslaughter.
How the accidental shooting of courier driver Halatau Naitoko (4) was less a case of manslaughter than some bloke accidentally shooting his mate while deer stalking, in my view exposes a chronic flaw in our legal system, denying the public the hand brake on police conduct they deserve, and which would be imposed by proper open court examination.
But whereas I do consider that it is now time to arm police 24/7, this alone is not the solution.
Because the problem I identify, is the danger to the families of profile police in the front line against gangs and organised crime.
If I was commissioner of police at this time, what would I do to bring to heel gangs which ride noise violating motorcycles with disregard for the laws and with apparent impunity and/or drug importers with links to serious international criminal organisations.
For a start, less time issuing infringement tickets in Remuera, Fendalton and Karori to white folk whom police know, will pay their fines and won’t get out of the vehicle and smash them.
Many will regard the attention to minor traffic violations (lowering speed limits is saving lives – what demonstrable nonsense) while having minimal or no presence on (taking one of many examples) the Waikato Auckland expressway same time as a horde of gang members ride rampant and attack motorists, as insulting and behaviour which undermines confidence in the police.
Point? Better utilization of resources and cut whinging about not enough staff.
PS And dare I say it? Review the ratio of male female cops – ‘cause at the end of the WOKE rainbow there are physically capable bad arse dudes out there whom most male cops could not handle.
For a start, if I was commissioner of police, I’d form a unit whose members would have total protection from discovery of identification.
Not even would work mates know that a colleague had been transferred to this “special squad”, because recruits to the squad would be required to ostensibly resign and move to a state anonymous – probably a time limit of 2 years on the squad.
Why the secrecy? Already a number of cops have been convicted of gang association – and it would be a fool who believed that somewhere else in the bowels of the behemoth, there are no more ‘cops’ who would sell their mates for a cash payment.
Therefore, the Special Squad members would have no contact with the world outside the Special Squad.
The Special Squad would be fully equipped – from weapons to protection of identity in courts to the extent they would wear masks in court.
Of course, going down this path makes removal of the IPCA review of police killings, absolutely essential. For if one is to have a squad of the calibre I suggest, that does not mean they would have the right to act with impunity – above the law.
Any “special squad” as I envisage, would have secrecy of their identities and therefore families, as their weapon of protection – rather than a gung-ho attitude with a firearm.
Outside the Square?
Of course, one could hire in a team of mercenaries. Americans are well equipped to provide such services: Blackwater for one. (5) [Maybe a Step Too Far?]
If the bad guys can’t identify the good guys (Special Squad) then sooner or later the bad guys might focus further up the tree for a target?
In which case, the commissioner might be well reminded of liability in big business?
The Buck Stops at the Top.
Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament; formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies & V.I.P. security; currently Honorary Consul for an African state, shareholding director of foreign commercial assets in New Zealand and has international business interest.
Ross Meurant: IRONY OR TRAGEDY Oct 28th 2021
As the Courts seem to unite in their support for the current Labour government quest for Customary Maori Law to usurp Statutory Law, irony emerges from the dark clouds which gather over the Land of the Long White Cloud.
The irony is; it was not Labour who opened the floodgates which have seen a tsunami of claims. It was National.
Labour now faces increasing hostility and blame for “Maorification” (1) of the country. Whereas twelve months ago, a few were lone voices, today things have changed.
A torrent of outrage now emerges as people who once were too afraid of being labelled a racist to oppose anything Maori, no longer feel that impediment and openly express their distaste for being force fed Maori through media sponsored by government and their children being force fed a language which many regard as being worthless outside a marae.
As Hon Dr Bassett comments on the Public Interest Journalism Fund (2) established by Labour:
“Stuff received $300,000 to establish a “cultural competency course”. To encourage Maori TV, NZME, Pacific Media, News hub and support partners to take on journalism cadets who are Maori or Pacific, a cool $2.4 million was handed out. NZME that produces the New Zealand Herald got $440,000. One estimate I’ve seen is that 40% of the total beneficence will go to Maori projects.”
The current initiatives by Jacinda’s team to elevate Maori above all other cultures which contribute to the makeup of New Zealand (3), now provide propulsion pushing the political pendulum away from Labour.
A particular point of conflict focuses on some 200 claims by Maori to ownership of the foreshore and seabed.
The irony of the land grab however, by my assessment, falls squarely at the feet of former Prime Minister Rt Hon Sir John Key and his Attorney General Chris Finlayson.
It was the National government of 2011 which overturned the protection against Maori land grab which had been provided by Prime Minister Helen Clark’s Labour government in 2004 when parliament passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act which deemed the title to be held by the Crown.
Helen Clark made it clear to the then Chief Justice Sian Elias, following the latter’s speculative commentary about the sanctity of Maori Customary law, that the ultimate law-making body in New Zealand was its sovereign parliament.
Helen Clark’s protection was repealed and replaced by National’s John Key via the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011.
Another irony to emerge, is that whereas a growing majority of traditional National party voters begin to resist the current government tsunami of elevating Maori above “the rest” (4) of New Zealand, the power which has been vested in Labour to embark on this “crusade”, falls squarely at the feet of the thousands of traditional Tory voters who abandoned National at the last election.
The fact that hard core traditional National seats across the country (including my former electorate where I had a 4,000 majority) went RED! That was another tsunami.
I suspect the reason behind most National deserting the fold, was a vote against a pitiful performance by National post John Key and in the run up to the last General Election. I was one such deserter.
The irony of MMP.
Ostensibly MMP would provide moderation against rule by one Party alone, under the First Past the Post system.
As the mathematician on my Hobson electorate correctly calculated when in 1994 I formed the first political party under MMP (and for several months formed the first coalition since the 1930ies and held the balance of power), (5) only in the most unusual circumstances would MMP ever deliver one Party the power to rule alone under MMP.
The irony is that the system of MMP gifted Jacinda, the power to rule alone.
Yet another irony is that the MMP system, promoted by Rod Donald and supported by Hon Jim Anderton, was grasped by former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger as a policy pledge in 1993 and delivered in time for the 1996 election.
The final irony in this review is that Labour Prime Ministers Rt Hon David Lange and Rt Hon Helen Clark, both rejected claims that the Treaty created a, “partnership between Maori and the Crown” and made it clear the that democratically elected Parliament is the ultimate forum where laws are made.
This irony is compounded by the opinions of Hon Richard Prebble and Hon Dr Michael Bassett; two former senior Labour government Ministers of the Crown; the later also being an esteemed historian academic who consistently speaks out against the trend to impose Maori Customary law above Statutory Law.
Yet, here we have an incumbent Labour government which forces the culture of one ethnic group of many which make up New Zealand, onto other cultures via media outlets which take government funding to promulgate their policies. (6)
The tragedy for Labour would be if the precedent of Austria Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (7) who stepped down after pressure triggered by a corruption scandal in that he used government money to ensure positive coverage in a tabloid newspaper, might be relevant in Labour’s case, or merely irony.
The tragedy for National would be that they fail to step up and state their policy on matters raised herein and ironically wonder why their traditional voter strength has gone to ACT or NZ First.
Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament; formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies; currently Honorary Consul for an African state, Trustee and CEO of Russian owned commercial assets in New Zealand and has international business interests.
ROSS MEURANT : GANGS AND GUNS December 6th 2021
Commissioner Coster’s recent explanation for the exponential and highly visible increase in firearms “incidents”, particularly in West and South Auckland, as being collateral COVID lockdown stress, is in my opinion, “staggering”.
I have previously posted support for Commissioner Coster. In my view, he was the handbrake police needed on what I discerned as an emerging “Gung Ho” approach to firearm use by police under former Commissioner Mike Bush. (1)
Unequivocally, I stand by my demand that police who shoot people, must have their actions reviewed before a proper court of law and not the IPCA which I have often labelled as being akin to “a boys club” of “back-room justice”, being as it is, completely out of public sight. (2)
This opinion does not mean that I don’t understand the need for police to be armed and to shoot persons – when the legal parameters apply. And, as it happens, twice I was confronted with this dilemma – oddly enough during the time I was a 24/7-armed front line commissioned officer in the NZ police. (3)
More recently, and to bring the debate back to, “what going on now”, where gun crimes are perpetrated in New Zealand, in July this year on Breaking Views, I penned: Arm Police 24/7 (4)
Times are a changing and, in my view, a strong case can now be made to arm police 24/7. This policy would of course take time to implement. Teaching police how to handle possession of a firearm – 24/7 – would be a quantum leap in police training in firearms, from what it is now.
Labour’s gun confiscation programme missed the target.
In my view, a significant factor in the elevation of gangs and guns, was the failure of Labour’s gun confiscation policy which followed the Christchurch massacres – very much I might add (in my opinion) an ill-considered rapid response via policy to try and fool the populace that, “everything is under control”.
Confiscation of guns was a deliberately designed “distraction” from a major contributing factor precipitating the Christchurch massacres which was, in my view, as a former commissioned officer in charge of Auckland police criminal intelligence section, that the CIS police failed in their mission to correctly evaluate intel.
Labour’s gun confiscation policy took the guns from the good guys aka hunters, target shooters, gun collectors et al which enabled Labour to boast about “thousands of guns” taken out of circulation.
But Labour’s gun confiscation policy failed to collect the armoury, invariably not registered, or held by persons without gun licenses, but also a much larger cache of illegal weapons.
How did the gangs get their guns?
Who had these weapons? The same people who have them now. Gang members and other assorted denizens of dark alleys.
For a start, apropos my comments above, Labour failed to collect the arsenal held by law breakers and instead focused on collecting arms from the law abiding.
Looking at media fotos of arms seized by police in recent raids, I do not see a range of artillery which suggests to me that boat loads of high-grade weapons are being smuggled into New Zealand via maritime expresses.
Most of the gang arsenal appears to be old NZ stock, probably stolen from gun shops and/or farmers’ rifle racks, over time. Many have been modified i.e., sawn off shot guns and pistol grips of e.g., .22 rifles.
Clearly, the prevalence of fire arm “incidents” which occur on an almost daily basis, putting New Zealanders at risk, is evidence that Labour’s gun confiscation policy has been a total failure.
Collateral damage to Labour also emerged. One should always remember that if you push a button or crank a lever, a consequential reaction will happen. In this case it was a mass exodus of gun lobby voters to ACT, and David Seymour was on a winner.
Looking at the current situation with the All Blacks, one might say: “Bring Back Buck?”
Looking at the current situation with gang warfare on the rampage, one might say: “Bring Back EGP?”
The weaponry described above will no doubt continue to be used by the run of the mill bandits or distraught domestic tragedy participants.
However, if I was a bandit – like I mean a serious bandit, my focus for preferred weapon would be – DRONES.
Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament; formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies & V.I.P. security; currently Honorary Consul for an African state, Trustee and CEO of Russian owned commercial assets in New Zealand and has international business interests.
THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY WITHOUT DEBATE
By Ross Meurant 14th Jan 2022
Germany’s President Steinmeier, said he felt it was his duty to “call for public debate
over serious questions.” He argued that “there is no democracy without debate.”
Addressing the issue of compulsory vaccination, President Steinmeier said this applied
to times of crisis as well. (1)
In a previous post, Rights Denied, (2) I raised the question of being, shut out of public
In particular I focused on the issue of this Labour/Green government elevating Maori above
all other ethnic communities which make up New Zealand and provided specific examples
of esteemed academics being vilified and blacklisted (‘scuse the pun) from public
discourse. Hon Dr Michael Bassett and Professor Liz Rata – being two of the most profile.
It seemed to me that their rights to challenge (and in fact I suggest, it was their duty as
senior academics), claims by some Maori that the Treaty ensconced a “Partnership”
whereby Maori should rule New Zealand as an equal partner with, The Rest – of us Kiwis,
was deemed unacceptable.
Unacceptable in that these experts had rejected the “WOKE” interpretation of science
which has been embraced by the emerging regime. This WOKE claim I totally debunk in A
Step Too Far (3)
But it doesn’t stop there. A penchant of government bureaucracies to deny Kiwis their
right to work unless they accept mandatory vaccination, now also emerges as another
attack on the Rights of New Zealanders.
I am double vaxed and had a boost. I am not anti vax. But I respect the rights of my
fellow countrymen (‘scuse the non-woke gender pro-noun) to say, “NO”.
Furthermore, compulsory vaccination for children, is where I draw the line. Much more
research needs be undertaken and peer reviewed – by competitors in the commercial
bonanza of inventing, manufacturing and supplying vaccines.
I’m closer to 70 than I am to 60 so if bad outcomes from too much vaccines do manifest,
at least I can say – “I’ve had a fair run at life”. But to force upon children, these vaccines
which do not meet testing protocols imposed on other vaccinations which over past
decades have saved us, is another Step Too Far.
Remember Thalidomide? (4)
As I review why some say NO, it seems to me opposition to vaccination stretches from
what I would consider conspiracy theorist stuff – like:
A It’s the plan of a very wealthy global influencer to reduce the population?
To the following:
Concern that we are being sucked in by the avaricious greed of some to make lots
of money by scaring the hell out of the masses who in the main are as ignorant as
to the origins, evolution and extinction of the virus and its mutating cousins, as are
many so-called experts.
To the following:
C Conflicting medical data raising serious concerns among many.
This conundrum reintroduces PLATO’s lament?
“We can forgive children for being afraid of the dark. We cannot forgive adults
for being afraid of the light.”
Put another way:
“If you don’t accept the bad news, you cannot identify the problem.”
Therefore, I take heed of PLATO and review the three paradigms A, B, C, and am
compelled contribute to the debate:
Re Category A: I’m not convinced.
Re Category B: This does attract my attention – especially as I recall National Party
Caucus disagreements – mid nineties – about whether foreign providers were trying to
influence people on Pharmac – with enticement to approve a particular product as
“acceptable” for New Zealand.
Note: This was about the time in history when we all going to die of AIDS – and therefore
should stop having sex – which as I reflect on this “wisdom”, might well have emanated
from propagators of A?
Re category C: I notice that “among many” includes many medical professionals?
Addendum: I do not for one moment suggest either in the nineties or now, that any
Pharmac appointees ever accepted enticements.
What does concern me however, is the trend toward shutting down any and all
challenges to the pathways this Labour/Green government now treads.
Most readers will have by now tired of reading the constant stream of facts and fiction
pertaining to COVID.
As swiftly as an “approved medical professional” comes out with the latest doomsday
predictions, “other non-approved medical professionals” produces EMPERICAL RESEARCH
which may question some of the Establishment’s Protocols and/or clinically expose Facts
Promulgated by Government Appointed Paragons – as flawed!
This in my view, gets to the nub of Rights Denied aka “Shut up ‘cause the Government
knows what it’s doing and its advisors are right.”
During 2020 Dr Simon Thornley whose academic quailfications are braodly similar to those
of Dr Ashley Bloomfield, challenged the Government’s Covid-19 elimination strategy
which put him on a collision course with merging media stars including Professor Michael
Thornley is reported to have said: “They’re trying to shut down alternative views which
have already been proven correct.” At one point he said: “There’s no doubt in my mind
the effects of the virus have been systematically exaggerated at every level.”
The article at Stuff (5) traverses conflicting opinion of Thornley. There were accusations of
“Cherry-picking” data, which in my view might also be applied to journalism.
End result? Michael Baker and his University of Otago colleague Professor Nick Wilson
Whether Thornley was right or wrong, it is my view that an attack mounted against a
person who dared to question the efficacy and integrity of a government protocol, if not
designed to scare and intimate others, most likely does.
At least Thornley wasn’t burned at the stake or had an eye put out as did denizens of
Carcassonne who failed to see the correct path to God.
History tells us however, that no science is so pure that it does not evolve. Therefore, the
more robust the challenges, the sooner a more reasoned outcome will prevail.
Remember Charles Darwin?
The conflicting international medical opinion is too vast for me to fully comprehend – let
alone try to condense for capture in this short post. But I do have the fortitude to say
that in my assessment of the situation:
As the inability of vaccines to make us immune to the virus was exposed as flawed
science, the implicit if not explicit assurances we had been given were rapidly
Contemporaneous assurances that being vaccinated does mitigate the impact of
the virus (which ever version one acquires), now flood the market place – yet these
claims cannot be proven.
o For example, consider the claims made by news.com.au in a NZ Herald
article 13 January 2021 (6) where NSW Sate Premier said, “around half of
those in the state’s intensive care units (ICUs) were vaccinated.”
o The reporter said: “This may be surprising to some but it should not be
taken as evidence the vaccines do not work. In fact, it shows the opposite.”
So here we have a reporter deciding whether the glass is half empty – or half full?
If that’s science for you mate, then I reckon we really do have a Problem at Mill.
Under fear of death descending upon us as mist on an overcast morning, if we did
not wear a mask and sanitise hands and stay at home and social distance when let
out of the cage to get food supplies, now appears to me to have been excessive
floundering in the mist by so-called medical professionals and politicians – who
really didn’t have a bloody clue- but were dead keen on either publicity and/or
keeping their jobs.
That while government bureaucrats remained fully paid, the backbone of New
Zealand’s economy – that is the small businesses who start a commercial activity by
risking their house (mortgaged to a fair-weather friend aka their bank) and employ
30 per cent of all NZ’s work force who in turn pay tax which in turn funds public
facilities like Health (soon to be gifted to Maori) and represent 25 per cent of GDP –
o SHUT DOWN: DENIED THE RIGHT TO WORK
o LOST THEIR SELF RESPECT: CRASHED INTO DEPRESSION.
It took Rt Hon John Key to come out firing accusing Labour/Green government of
creating a HERMIT STATE – before some of these extreme reactions of panic at the
mill (aka Parliament) were – moderated. Mildly.
But still, thousands of Kiwis cannot get home from abroad.
Why the Labour/ Green government has not done as they have in China AND Russia,
and built portable hospitals/MIQs to accommodate elevations in contagion and
have these facilities additional to public hospitals?
o Why has not the disused Military facility at the end of Whangaparāoa
(Orewa) been converted from a police AOS shooting range facility? If the
doomsday predictions are half true, Auckland will need such facilities.
In my view, the public have a right to be heard.
Opinion is not the prerogative of the Prime Minister alone.
This right may manifest in the form of professionals producing empirical research which
challenges government policy.
This right may manifest of the form of new political party.
These rights must prevail and not, as I said in RIGHTS DENIED be under threat of”
“Criminalising comment which challenges government is one option. Pressure on
Facebook etc is another. Either way, it is DEMOCRACY DENIED.” (7)
Returning to the German President, I suggest he set the tone for debate which New
Zealand would do well to embrace, when called on his fellow countrymen and women
to show respect for opinions that differ from their own, and also for “facts and
reason,” which “must be and remain our common currency.” (8)
Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament;
formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies & V.I.P. security; currently Honorary
Consul for an African state, Trustee and CEO of Russian owned commercial assets in New
Zealand and has international business interest
TO HOLD A PEN IS TO BE AT WAR – ROSS MEURANT
27th Sept 2022
Ross Meurant: To Hold A Pen Is To Be At War
Labels: Politics, Ross Meurant, Separatism
Along with other former Members of Parliament including Hon Michael Bassett, Dr Don Brash, Dr Muriel Newman, Hon John Banks, Graeme Reeves, Hon Richard Prebble to name some, I have taken the up the cudgel by pen, to fight against the blatant racist policies of this Labour government. My days of a sword in hand as a police enforcer are past as it is between tending the roses that I pick up my feathered quill.
But as Voltaire once said: “To hold a pen is to be at war”.
In my view, and as other commentators including left leaning Chris Trotter (1) also now begin to suggest, an emerging outcome of Labour’s racially divisive policies will result in violence on a different scale to 1981 Springbok protests.
Visible protest in the streets, can be handled. (2) The danger is, if the perpetrators of violence, go “invisible” i.e., “underground”.
The temperature is rising. Only a fool would not feel that heat.
Equally vulnerable to violence are politicians promoting division of New Zealand by ethnicity.
If I was still Officer in Command of Police Spies, I would be conducting surveillance/tracking on both anti-Maori separatist and on Maori separatist forit only takes a couple of unstable believers on either side, to lose the plot or OD on meths to ignite a civil war. The technology available today makes this threat even more real.
The temperature is rising. Only incompetent police planning would not have considered the above.
Step Back in Time.
As I trawl back through recent history, I discern an insidious infection of our government has been afoot, at least since 1972 when Maori activist Sid Jackson’s wife Hana, regularly delivered pamphlets: “Kill a White & Die a Hero”. (3)
The other day I looked at what I said in my Maiden Speech (4) in 1987.
The short version? I name a number of Maori whom police had been tracking and what some had been up to. The data was from files I had when in my last role in the police: Inspector in charge of Criminal Intelligence and VIP Security. Passage of time, regrettably, appears to vindicate much of the content of that speech to parliament.
Interestingly, Maori MPs Rt Hon Dr Sir Peter Tapsell and Hon Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan both crossed the floor from the Labour side to commend me for having the courage to say what I said. On my side of the Chamber, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham and Doug Kidd, glared from afar.
The outcome? My car was torched outside the bedroom window of my seven-year-old daughter.
Who may resort to violence?
“Maori Separatist” label non-Maori opposed to the separatist polices of Labour as “White Supremist” and at the extreme end of opposition to so-called “co governance”, there will be people who may well be in this category.
There is however a far larger and growing catchment of “ordinary Kiwis” who have had enough of Maorification and it only takes one to over-step the line.
At the other end of the paradigm, irrespective of Maori ceding sovereignty to the Crown – this having been definitively asserted by academics and political leaders alike – some Maori threaten to “take back our land by violence”. (5)
Rt Hon Helen Clark once referred to this group as “wreckers and haters”. (6)
The fault for this mess New Zealand now confronts, is not in the stars, but nor exclusively at the doorstep of Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern.
A critical point in time was the focus on some 200 claims by Maori to ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Rt Hon Helen Clark (for whom I have respect) made it clear to the then Chief Justice Sian Elias (for whom I have no respect), following the latter’s speculative commentary about the sanctity of Maori Customary law, that the ultimate law-making body in New Zealand was its Sovereign Parliament.
The outcome of what appeared to me to be a bit of a power play between both ladies, was that Prime Minister Helen Clark’s Labour government in 2004 passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act which deemed the title to be held by the Crown.
Alas! Helen Clark’s protection was repealed and replaced by National’s John Key via the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011. (7)
By my assessment, the irony of the land grab falls squarely at the feet of former Prime Minister Rt Hon Sir John Key and his Attorney General Chris Finlayson. (8)
But it didn’t start there.
Rt Hon Jim Bolger and Hon Doug Graham’s mid-nineties proposition to a Special National government caucus on Thursday morning (formal caucus is Tuesday mornings), that they intended to introduce under Urgency, a Bill (i.e., law) to give rights to Maori over the foreshore of our country which would empower them to “detain i.e., arrest and inspect”, fishers’ catch of the day where they had been fishing within 12 nautical miles of the coastline.
When the Prime Minister of the moment, informed caucus and at least three of his cabinet ministers for the first time, that this was the hidden agenda, uproar ensured – particularly from the three cabinet ministers who claimed they had no knowledge of the “deal”.
They did well to shout, but as members of the “Executive”, they were bound by “Collective Responsibility”, so shout is all they did lest they lost their rank – not a good idea for the pension factor!
My elevation to Executive rank, was not to arrive until my next term, so I was not bound and gagged. Later that day I went “Live on Holmes” TV in Auckland and called out the Prime Minister – who had no choice but to appear “Live on Holmes” in Wellington. (9)
The debacle which followed was – distasteful – but the outcome was, Mr Bolger backed off his stated intention earlier that day to ram through under Urgency, legislation to grant Maori special rights over the rest of us Kiwis.
Back to the Present.
I share a concern with a growing number of Kiwis that all we have aspired to, fought for, and worked for; to secure education and opportunities for our children and retirement for ourselves, is being stolen from us by the Labour government which plunders with virtual impunity – as National abandons its core philosophy and deserts voters who deserted “it” last election for a previous pitiful performance.
Asian immigrants who hope to soon be fully qualified Kiwis (yet this process is now under threat) also have awareness of the threat to their ownership of land and rights before the law as “equals”.
Another irony appears to be, that the beneficiaries of this asset and rights appropriation under Labour’s policies, is that it benefits the “few Maori” at the apex of the tribal system of Maori rule.
The Maori bloke who 7 years ago was sweeping streets in Ngaruwahia and the Maori lady who 3 years ago was stacking shelves at Remuera Foodtown, are still sweeping and stacking today and this they will do until their time is up.
Welcome to the Land of the Long Black Cloud.
How did we get to the perilous abyss we now stare into with uncertainty and foreboding?
As I penned last week in “The Silent Weapon” (10)
‘The Fabián philosophy which permeates not only our parliament but also the higher levels of state bureaucracies (through systematic infiltration over at least the past 45 years as I look back and reflect on events)’ has massively manipulated New Zealand to suit its pseudo communist ethos.
One consequence of this virus manifest in our government has been to champion the altruistic crusade of, “climate catastrophe is nigh” and “woke is wonderful” mentality which pervades bureaucracies globally. However, in Europe at the moment as economic reality hits “the pocket” of the voter, the “integrity” of this altruistic quest is rapidly being exposed.
In the UK Prime Minister Liz Truss is lifting the ban on fracking. Germany is now generating nearly a third of its electricity from coal. In Europe forests are being cut for firewood. (11) Who was Greta? (12)
The question is, as the economic reality of the alarming level of asset and civil rights usurpation under Labour’s reign begins to hurt main stream New Zealand taxpayers, property owners and “the pocket”, will sufficient pressure emanate from “The Rest” i.e., the 90 percent of New Zealanders who don’t qualify to benefit from Labour’s policies of blatant inequality before the Law – to expose the integrity of the Fabianism which brings division to the fore of New Zealand?
PS I say, “The Rest i.e., 90 percent” because it is clear to me that many of the 18 percent of New Zealanders who are part Maori, don’t buy Labour’s separatist agenda.
And I am one such person. (13)
Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament; formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies & V.I.P. security; currently Honorary Consul for an African state, Trustee and CEO of Russian owned commercial assets in New Zealand and has international business interest
Ross Meurant: A Step too far: Bi-Cultural Partnership
March 7th 2021
Bi-Culturalism, predicated as it is and as promulgated by its exponents on the concept of “Partnership”, means Maori should rule New Zealand as an equal partner with, The Rest – of us Kiwis. By its very description bi-cultural partnership looms in New Zealand today as: DIVISIVE.
What is, “Partnership”?
In terms of the Treaty of Waitangi as far as this concept intrudes on Constitutional Law, at the political level, politicians of considerable experience – from Rt Hon David Lange to Rt Hon Sir Bill English and Rt Hon Winston Peters – have all dismissed the claim that the Treaty created a, “partnership between Maori and the Crown”.
At the political and pseudo academic level, Attorney General and Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations (Chris Finlayson), and somebody well known for having considerable sympathy for Maori aspirations, said that there was, “no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand”. (1)
At the academic level former Judge and law lecturer Anthony Willy provides three comprehensive reasons why the claim to partnership, by some elements of Maori, is without foundation.
Of particular relevance to this debate he explains that since the use of the word ‘partnership’ in the 1987 Maori Council Court of Appeal case, which activists claim as the ‘evidence’ of the existence of their ‘partnership’ with the Crown, was part of the commentary of the judgement and not the decision, the concept has no standing in law. (2)
Dr Muriel Newman contends that contemporaneous claims being made by some elements within Maori of, “Treaty partnership claims”, are without substance and are, a “big lie” that is being perpetrated against New Zealand democracy. (3)
Yet, this misguide belief that the Treaty did create a partnership of governance, has been weaponised. It is no longer just a tool of convenience for self-proclaimed “influencers” but a dangerous weapon in the hands of “wannabe” politicians who seek to chart our future.
In some cases, Maori and others who promulgate this false legal pretext to promote equal partnership between Maori and the Sovereign State of New Zealand, may not understand the legal reality, but in other cases there is in my view, a strategy to brainwash as many as possible and /or intimidate those who stand to defend the legal reality, that the Crown never ceded any sovereignty to Maori.
It is worth noting that when Rt Hon Helen Clark was Prime Minister she called Maori supremacists “haters and wreckers” and refused their demands. (4)
What is culture?
Culture, captures the essence of what people feel they are: (a) In the form of folklore, family traditions and customs; (b) In the form of dancing and music; (c) In the form of belief: religion or faith; (d) Historical events passed down through the generations; and (e) Language is a critical component.
I empathise with ethnic groups who seek to preserve their culture.
Statistics New Zealand advised that only one in six Maori could speak te reo with some degree of fluency, and since Maori make up only about one in six of our total population, that is likely to mean that only about 3% of our total population can speak it fluently.
Preservation of Maori language is important – to some. But to impose resurrection of Maori language as duty or worse; as a compulsory obligation on ethnic groups who are not Maori? This I consider to be, a step too far.
In my view; it is up to Maori to preserve their culture in New Zealand, just as do the Scottish decedents in Southland and as do the descendent of Dalmatia in Northland.
I hear no demand from Chinese or India communities to impose their language on other New Zealanders – yet both cultures flourish and in terms of critical mass, their population explosion is manifest and both will be dominant population bases in the future.
What then, is the culture of New Zealand? Is it, Highland dancing – as I was brought up with? Is it the haka? To some, it may be – rugby?
Many a true word spoken in jest – but reflect for a moment: what is the culture of New Zealand? I see little if any element other than rugby and the haka in New Zealand’s emerging culture. Perhaps nostalgic characteristics akin to Barry Crump’s “A Good keen man” – or – Murray Ball’s “Foot Rot Flats”? Maybe a shearing shed somewhere?
But no equivalent of Shakespeare, Wordsworth or Lord Byron and others who are implicit in British culture. Nor do I discern any of the equivalent of Swan lake; Tchaikovsky, Borodin or Shostakovich – these being elements which contribute to the culture of Russia, to which I’ve had extensively exposure these past 20 years.
We do have “our” internationally lauded Diva; Dame Kiri Te Kanawa. Yet it’s difficult to find her magic in the mixture which is emerging as the culture of New Zealand. For example: How does she rate among Kiwis, with Sir Colin Meads?
Defining “Kiwi culture” may be something yet to be determined, but whatever it may be, to divide the nation between: “Maori culture” and “The Rest”, is a national issue of mammoth magnitude.
Who am I?
At this point I deem it appropriate to make it clear that I am of mixed blood (as are we all) and some of that is Maori. What’s more, demonstrable royal lineage.
On my mother’s maternal side, I have Irish and English; and on her paternal side, Norwegian and Maori. Some Scandinavian seaman jumped ship in the Hokianga late 19th century. Hei Hei/KIngi is the connection and the rest needs no further explanation.
On my father’s maternal; side I have Scottish; and on his paternal side, French and Maori.
By this pedigree, I can say that my French Gt Gt grandfather rocked up in Kawhia in 1835 where he married Princess Kenehuru of Tainui; the daughter of Chief Te Tuhi-O-Terangi of Nga Mahuta and a direct descendant of King Te Wherowhero.
Perhaps you might call me, Chief?
It is also timely to advise, that my first wife’s mother, was part Cook Island part Australian So, for they who would pounce upon me with tirades of “anti-Maori and racist”: Tread softly for to do so is to tread on the dreams of my relatives.
Being coerced to accept bi-culturalism risks creating a latent resentment towards Maori.
Pressure by government and main stream media, to accept a bi-cultural regime over a society of the multiple cultures which make up New Zealand, may well result in, “Blowback” (5).
For example: A China Political Party might emerge within our parliament, resulting unexpected political outcomes, under our system of MMP?
Whether a new political party was to be based on Indian culture; Thailand or Philippines; introduction of political Parties representing the interest of diverse cultures, would provide a vehicle to protect the values of communities which may find themselves being relegated to, The Rest, under a bi-cultural system.
As always and particularly in politics: “Be careful for what you wish.”
Whereas bi-culturalism clearly aims at elevating Maori above The Rest of New Zealand, multi-culture by its very label, is inclusive.
Every culture must have the right to retain its origins; its religion, to speak its language, to embrace its ethnicity. No culture should be elevated above another. Multi-Culturalism = Equality and fairness.
Let’s look at a chronology of arrivals.
Maori first arrived in New Zealand 850 AD or thereabouts. Kupe was the great adventurer of that time.
Morori however, insist that Maori were not the first to set foot on this antipodean outpost.
Russian whalers were early arrivals in Bay of Islands.
French colonialists were camped on Banks Peninsula.
Scotland, England, Wales from “downstairs”, provided the earliest white immigrants paying their own way to New Zealand
Chinese were present in the Coromandel and Otago gold fields where they were treated abominably. A hundred years later, these Coolies, had graduated from an ostracised underclass to business owners.
Dalmatians flocked to Northland in early 20th century where their harvesting of Kauri gum earned more export revenue than was achieved from gold exports!
A half a century later; offspring of these “Dallies” were still being demeaned in racist terms. Today however, the offspring of these hard-working immigrants may be found as major employers in the wine industry, commercial fishing, and the construction industry.
Take Sir Peter Talley as an example. Son of Ivan Peter Talijancich (later known as Ivan Talley), from modest beginnings in Motueka as a manufacturer of seafood; this family which for decades, ploughed its way through turbulent seas, on coastal trawlers, is today one of the largest fish exporters on the planet. Frozen vegetables, meat exports and hotels followed the fish.
Mid 1950ies and arrivals from Holland dominated the statistics. Today the legacy of Dutch immigrants is well established in our dairy farming sectors.
Arrivals from across Europe: be they French or German; Polish, Hungarian, Swedish or from Denmark – followed in dribs and drabs. Today, they contribute to the diversity of New Zealand’s population.
Immigrants from India flowed in the Sixties. Many established as vegetable farmers in southern Auckland where today, their descendants thrive.
By the 1970ies, Pacific Island nations had begun their migrations. From Samoa, Cook Islands, Tonga, Niue and Fiji.
These and other Pacific Island communities in New Zealand, are another manifestation of multi-culturalism.
If I may dwell momentarily on “Islanders” – as they were referred to in the Seventies.
As a police detective in the seventies, recent arrivals from the Islands were often condemned as a scapegoat for anti-social behaviour by brown skinned people – irrespective of whether they were the perpetrators.
Blatant racism not only among police but many Kiwis, was heaped upon, “Islanders”.
Reality transpired that Pacific Islanders brought with them strong codes of family and religion and hard work.
Many took manual jobs; working hard to provide the means for their children to gain a better start to life.
I think of former NZ League rep and former police officer Josh Liava’a– with whom I started a private security company during the last 5 years we were mates and still serving police officers.
The objective of Josh, a Tongan by birth and one of the first emigrants to NZ, was to earn additional money so that he could put his kids through university – which he did.
During these years, Josh effectively had three jobs! A cop – he attained sergeant rank; director of a private security company, and we were also both at university in our spare time: Josh graduating Dip Crim.
On top of that, he played rugby league for New Zealand.
Josh was one – if not the first among Pacific Island people to arrive in New Zealand during the sixties, to set a bench mark many others have emulated.
Today, sports professionals with Pacific Island heritage, tend to dominate New Zealand selections in rugby and league.
Dame Valerie Adams stands out as an exceptional shot-put World and Olympic champion – born in New Zealand of Tongan and English parents.
Success among Pacific Islanders is not confined to the sports arena. In academia, they are making their mark.
If I may again step back in time to, Red Squad.
Red Group had cops from backgrounds we describe as; European, Maori and Pacific Island. Only one had been to a private school. At the time there were no Asian or sub-Asia continent cops in Red Group.
Over the following two decades:
Of the 70 per cent of my squad, who were in the European category, only the private school chap later graduated LLb. He was also commissioned.
Two cops of Samoan first generation heritage and not from affluent demographics, representing 10 per cent of my squad, both later graduated LLb & BA and both were commissioned.
Of Maori who represented 15 per cent of the squad; none graduated university, nor were any commissioned.
Is there is a message in the above examples and comparisons? Where the ratio of Pacific Islands immigrants per head of population, to have overcome prejudice and having invariably started in lower socio-economic zones, who have attained high level achievements in sport and academia – is above the ratio of Maori achievement in these fields of endeavour?
Perhaps it’s time for New Zealand to look inwards.
Pacific Island groups retain their native language, their strong family bonds and their religious beliefs – without petitioning government to impose their cultures on other cultures within New Zealand.
Pacific Islanders entrenched cultural values are as different from Maori as is the heritage of Samoa from Tonga or Fiji. To categorise the people as, “The Rest”, is insulting and offensive.
The Bi-cultural Partnership model, compels these people to leave behind their true cultures; and be either in the camp of Maori or The Rest.
If Pacifika peoples have been able to rise above the adversity which confronted most arrivals beginning in the sixties, without reserved places and concession levels of graduation, perhaps it’s time for New Zealand and Maori to face a few realities about why and how, too many Maori atrophy near the bottom of the socio-economic paradigm?
As Plato said: “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”
Many have made it.
Two former parliamentary colleagues with whom I had good relations and for whom I have the highest and enduring respect, made it. Both supported me in my early days in parliament when for a time, things for me were – turbulent.
Hon Sir Dr Peter Tapsell and Hon Whetu Tirikatene – Sullivan. Both a stand out Maori achiever.
Maori have provided New Zealand military with a constant flow of high performing personnel and still do.
My brother, Brad Meurant and I were born in rural Northland without silver spoons, and have sufficient Maori pedigree to have claimed all manner of grants and assistance for Maori. We did not. Somehow, we broke the mould of, “disadvantaged childhood environment”, which is all too often claimed by some Maori who did not “make it”, as the excuse for failure.
From a self-employed plumber, Brad made it in sport. A former North Harbour, Chief’s and Northern Region Maori rugby coach; coach of provincial teams in South Africa, Ireland and Japan and who coached the Georgia national team. Ultimately President North Harbour rugby union.
From an unstable childhood and failing school cert, I am now a Master’s university graduate with two and half degrees; a 9-year term Member of Parliament and Under Secretary; formerly a commissioned officer in the police – inspector, and who has carried the infamy of Red Squad as a poisoned chalice; currently Honorary Consul for an African state; Trustee and CEO of substantial absentee Russian owned commercial assets in NZ and have my own international business interests.
This odyssey included a crippling 12-month of depression my mid-fifties (not uncommon for males) precipitated by the Scampi Affair.(6)
From the same backyard as me and of Maori Croatian heritage, Hon Clem Simich Llb made it. Police; real estate; parliament and cabinet minister.
From the same school as me and of Maori Scottish heritage, Rt Hon Winston Peters Llb made it from a rural Northland.
It can be done without special treatment of State support and protection.
Reverting to the chronology of arrivals.
By the dawning of the 21st century, new Kiwis were arriving in their thousands from Asia.
Recent arrivals from India and Pakistan, fulfil essential services. From taxi, truck and bus operators to shop owners. From Council employees to professionals in the Health industry.
Immigrants from China, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines may be found as small business owners, restaurateurs, IT technicians, students. And health care workers!
Take Aged Care and health facilities as one example.
Where would New Zealand be, if it were not for this flood of health workers from S.E. Asia?
Others from the Middle East. Iraq in particular has provided this country with a large contingent of medically qualified practitioners. More came from Russia. From South Africa they came. White and Black. From Sudan. From Eritrea.
A diversity of religions is changing the face of New Zealand forever.
These immigrants are today, what constitutes New Zealanders and makes us a, MULTI CULTURAL SOCIETY.
Each and every ethnic grouping which makes up New Zealand today, must have equal rights to practice their religion; their language; their cultural activities.
We are a nation of diverse heritage. We are a multi cultured society. We are not a bi-cultural society of Maori versus the Rest. Multi Culture = Equality & Fairness.
Yet, to speak against this emerging bi-cultural division of our country; is to do so under fear of physical and on-line abuse and being labelled – racist.
That Dr Don Brash or any other New Zealander, advocates embracing multi culture society over a racially divisive bi-culture, is no justification to attack that advocate, as a racist.
Nor can their assessments of the Treaty, condemn Judge and law lecturer Anthony Willy, or Dr Newman, or Rt Hon Winston Peters, or former Prime Ministers David Lange and Sir Bill English, or attorney general Hon Chris Finlayson, as racists. Rule of Law, not Rule of the Mob.
Conversely, some of the invective emanating from some of the protagonists of bi-culturalism – comes perilously close to blatant racism; threatening language and behaviour. Rule of the Mob, not Rule of Law.
Yet, in October 2020, in defiance of this intimidating environment, Northland Regional councillor John Bain resigned and walked out of the council chamber, saying that he did not want to be part of a ‘broken democracy’ bringing in Māori constituencies without a council-initiated poll to get the community’s steer on what it wanted. (7)
As Dr Brash presages in a recent article; “Those who demand representation based on race, claim that it is those who oppose such race-based representation who are the racists! But it is surely those who want councillors elected on a race-based franchise who are the real racists.” (8)
More recent revelations by the Labour government to retrospectively legislate against referendums and impose Maori Wards, reeks not only of racism but blatant contempt for the democratic process. (9)
What John Bain did, took courage. Not the sort of courage many Kiwis like to embrace in their definition of NZ Culture – such as a, “hard man on a rugby field”.
John Bain demonstrated the sort of courage which is all too absent in New Zealanders who in the safety of their living rooms, vociferously protest against this attempted theft of New Zealand, yet are too afraid to take a visible stand.
The question is: where do you stand?