Colonisation is colour blind

On the surface this may seem like an oxymoron.

Here in New Zealand Maori were subjected to lands confiscated, segregation, language forbidden and medicine criminalised. And think too of the historic image of Klu klux klan parading down Karangahape Road in Auckland. Chinese immigrants, invited here as part of colonialism, also fared badly due to heavy bias. Discrimination and the cancelling of existing culture most certainly played a huge part and many discriminatory acts were committed but I argue that Colonisation in itself was not inspired by the colour of skin. To find answers we need to look at who was responsible for instigating colonisation and what their motivations might have been?

Around the same time as New Zealand colonisation similar activities were being enacted all across the world. Territories in North America (e.g., Canada), Australia, New Zealand, Africa (e.g., Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa), and Asia (e.g., India, Burma, Malaya, Hong Kong, parts of the Middle East). Their vast enterprise also included islands in the Pacific (e.g., Fiji, Tonga, Solomon Islands) and colonies in the Caribbean and parts of South America.
It was a legacy of trading companies responsible – who were not just involved in trade but in facilitating the acquisition of territories, exploitation of resources and the establishment of colonial societies. It wasn’t about one culture against another. Colonisation was a corporate takeover.

Who commissioned Colonialism?

The opportunity to make money was one of the primary motivators for the colonization of the New World.

The City of London Corporation which had been operating for 900 years as Britain’s trading centre was at the center of funding colonialism. Its activities initiated a capital transition from being a small centre to a global capital powerhouse. Formed with private investors and stakeholders, it was responsible for financing joint stock companies such as the New Zealand Company, the Virginia Company, and the East India Trading Company.

King James I commissioned the colonization of Virginia by granting a royal charter to the Virginia company of London in 1606. This joint-stock company of investors, supported by the Crown, was authorized to establish settlements and plantations in the region known as Virginia, with the ultimate goal of finding wealth, such as gold and silver, and establishing a permanent English presence in North America.

The British Government, under King George III, commissioned the colonisation of Australia primarily to alleviate overcrowding in British prisons by establishing a penal colony. This followed Captain James Cook’s 1770 charting and claiming of the east coast of Australia for Britain.

The British government commissioned a New Zealand Company to colonise New Zealand in 1837. The New Zealand Company was a commercial enterprise chartered primarily to organise a large-scale British settlement of New Zealand. Based on ‘systemic colonisation’ theories of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, it was the driving force behind the establishment of early European settlements, including Wellington, Nelson, and New Plymouth, aiming to create prosperous “Little Englands”. Promoted as a way for poor Brits to escape poverty, Wakefield’s system aimed to hike up land prices to keep labourers working for wages before they could afford to buy land, thereby preventing social disorder and providing a skilled labor supply for landowners.

In 1840, the British Colonial Office recognised the New Zealand Company as a government agent. It received a charter and a land title, allowing it to act on behalf of the British government to organise settlers.

Connections of Edward Gibbon Wakefield to the City of London Corporation were not direct but lay in the powerful London-based commercial and financial circles from which the New Zealand Company and systematic colonisation ideas emerged. The City of London Corporation had economic interests, which indirectly supported Wakefield’s ventures by providing essential capital and influential networks required to fund his large-scale British settlement schemes in places like New Zealand.

On 18 November 1840 Lord John Russell, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, recognised the New Zealand Company as an instrument of colonisation for the British Government which was invaluable to settle claims to land in New Zealand. On 12 February 1841 the Company was granted a charter of incorporation for forty years for the purpose of the purchase, sale, settlement, and cultivation of land in New Zealand. This involved the purchase of land from Maori, survey of that land, and its sale in England. Part of the profits from these land sales was to defray the cost of sending to New Zealand selected working class emigrants. Other parts of the profits were to be devoted to the provision of public works and education. It was understood that the landowners were to proceed to New Zealand to cultivate their properties, employ the working class immigrants, and provide capital for the young settlements.

The New Zealand Company was formally incorporated and granted its charter of incorporation on February 12, 1841. The British Colonial Office was based in central London, England, specifically in a building on Downing Street, and managed the administration of Britain’s colonies, including New Zealand. It received a charter and a land title, allowing it to act on behalf of the British government to organise settlers.

The relationship between the British Colonial Office and the City of London Corporation was complex, as they were distinct entities but intertwined through the City’s role in global finance and British imperialism. While the Colonial Office managed British colonies as part of the formal empire, the City of London Corporation was a financier.

“The City of London is more than a business district,
we at the City of London Corporation are more than
guardians of history. We are convenors, facilitators,
enablers, philanthropists, landlords, educators,
environmentalists, and more.”.

The City of London Corporation has historically been a major source of financial loans to the monarch, with funds often used to support royal policies, including those related to overseas expansion. The City of London Corporation was not “established” by a single entity but evolved over time. The settlement of London was originally founded by the Romans around 47 AD, but the Corporation’s governing structure developed much later with its earliest royal charter granted by William the Conqueror around 1067, confirming prior rights. Its purpose was to govern the ancient “Square Mile” of the City of London, acting as a unique local government and working to maintain the City’s status as a global financial and business center. The Corporation is legally regarded as “incorporated by prescription,” meaning law presumes its existence because it has been recognized as such for such a long time.

The City of London Corporation played a role in funding colonialism by providing financial support to the Crown and the British Empire, enabling overseas expansion and the acquisition of colonial possessions. Its position as a centre of finance and commerce meant that the wealth and resources generated within the City were crucial for financing imperial projects. The profits from colonial trade and investment flowed into the City, further solidifying its financial dominance and capacity to fund future imperial endeavours.

The stakeholders of the City of London corporation at the time of the British colonisation were Lord Mayors, aldermen, and city officials as well as trade guilds, shareholders who invested for profit. The investors had significant financial interests and directly benefited from colonial trade and exploitation. Through indirect financial support the colonies were elevated to pay interest back to the city making the financial sector a hub of imperial capital. British colonies were able to borrow which encouraged further expansion.

Joint stock companies were supported by the corporation such as the Virginia Company of London and the New Zealand Company in 1838. These financed colonisation and reaped profits. Profits from trade in colonial goods flowed back into the corporation and helped establish institutions such as the London Stock Exchange and major banks.

The corporation has formally acknowledged its connection to the transatlantic slave trade. Forced labour was a key component to minimise costs, and maximise profit. It was a key backer of the plantation of ulster. Rural Irish refugees were forced by hunger and evictions off their land and resettled as part of colonisation. Historical records show that financial institutions in the city also provided capital for the slave trade, including major banks that insured slave ships. The Australian penal colonies involved forced labour, mistreatment and control over convicts was a form of slavery. The Virginia company first bought African slaves from a Portuguese slave ship in 1619 at Jamestown.

Forced labor was not uncommon — Africans and Europeans had been trading goods and people across the Mediterranean for centuries — but enslavement had not been based primarily on race. The trans-Atlantic slave trade, which began as early as the 15th century, introduced a system of slavery that was commercialized, racialized and inherited. Enslaved people were seen not as people at all but as commodities to be bought, sold and exploited. Though people of African descent — free and enslaved — were present in North America as early as the 1500s, the sale of the “20 and odd” African people set the course for what would become slavery in the United States. Blackbirding was an integral part of European colonisation in the Pacific and Australia, as it provided cheap, forced labor for plantations and other colonial enterprises, often through coercion and kidnapping. This forced labour system served the economic interests of colonial expansion and was part of the broader context of the exploitation.

Worsley said that all properties used by the Stuart dynasty in the 17th century were “going to have an element of money derived from slavery” within them. This includes Kensington Palace and Hampton Court Palace, which have connections to King William III, another part owner of the Royal African Company.

Slavery was not restricted by colour

In the 15th century the Roman Catholic Church granted Portugal the monopoly on trade in West Africa and Spain – the right to colonise the New World in quest for land and gold. It also granted the right to invade, plunder and ‘reduce their persons to perpetual slavery’. The slave trade provided political power, social standing and wealth for the church, European nation-states, New World colonies and individuals.

In the 17th to 18th centuries, many white people in Britain, Ireland and European Colonies were indentured servants. A sterling Professor of History at Yale University wrote that:
From Barbados to Virginia, colonists long preferred English or Irish indentured servants as their main source of field labor; during most of the seventeenth century they showed few scruples about reducing their less fortunate countrymen to a status little different from chattel slaves – a degradation that was being carried out in a more extreme and far more extensive way with respect to the peasantry in contemporary Russia. The prevalence and suffering of white slaves, serfs and indentured servants in the early modern period suggests that there was nothing inevitable about limiting plantation slavery to people of African origin. Despite this slavery was not unknown prior to colonialism tribal slaves were common in New Zealand and white slaves were taken by Maori masters in the 1790’s and 1880s.

But I divert.

Slavery was one instrument of Colonisation, and Debt was another. Investors financed colonisation which helped establish major banks. Colonial migrants to New Zealand often relied on debt to finance their journey and costs of establishment in the new world. A debt cycle exacerbated by the colonial government that extensively used overseas loans to fund public works and attract settlers, borrowing for development. While a scheme of the 1870s brought many migrants through funded schemes, it also relied heavily on borrowing, leading to a deep national debt that shaped the economy for decades. Individuals, too, incurred debt, often taking out mortgages for land or homes with initial 5% interest rates.
It’s an extremely sophisticated scheme with debt bondage being closely linked to slavery…when someone is forced to work to pay off debt

Banks today continue to exert considerable power by controlling lending and the money supply. New Zealand’s government owes money primarily to offshore investors, including foreign-owned banks, and local entities such as fund managers, insurance companies, and pension funds who purchase government bonds. The government raises money by selling securities to investors, which can include banks, financial institutions. New Zealand Government Securities are issued on behalf of the New Zealand Crown by New Zealand Debt Management.

The New Zealand government uses a model of crown entities, which are legal entities separate from the crown. Crown is a shape shifting legal fiction which involves the executive branch of the government including government ministers, departments and agencies. Crown entities include delivering public services, and regulatory functions such as school boards and tertiary institutions.

Banks exert political influence through lobbying, political appointments to boards, and financial contributions to sway policy and regulation in their favour. The banking sector influences the World Economic Forum (WEF) by participating in its discussions, shaping industry agendas, and contributing to solutions for global economic challenges like financial stability, sustainability, and technological change. Banks are active participants.

Today NZ is still in debt. Today, the City of London Corporation has no direct control over New Zealand, being a local government body of the City of London financial district. However, BlackRock, a multinational investment management corporation, does have significant influence in New Zealand’s financial sector, managing billions in assets for major NZ institutions. BlackRock is the world’s largest asset management firm, providing investment, risk management, and financial investment to clients globally, including institutions and individuals. Founded in 1988, the American company manages trillions of dollars in assets, while BlackRock’s European headquarters is at Drapers Gardens, right in the heart of the City of London. According to the New Zealand Herald in an article published 18th August 2025 NZ debt nears $1 trillion as growth moderates, savings fall
Unlike many countries, New Zealand does not have legislated numerical fiscal rules, such as a fixed ceiling on debt and deficit. Maintaining fiscal sustainability, and therefore sustainable debt, is necessary to avoid debt crises or sharp changes in tax or spending, and the consequent harm to living standards. The result of debt reaching a potential crisis means the government can default on debt, make drastic adjustments to spending and taxation, can stimulate inflation to devalue debt. All of which would create devastating living standards for the population. One example is The Great Hunger of Ireland in 1845 where government debt significantly worsened conditions of the Irish people. Fiscal debt, or more accurately, British government economic policies and the associated financial crisis of the mid-1840s, played a significant role in the severity of the Irish Famine, not the direct cause, but in hindering effective relief efforts. Resilience of a nation is disaffected by government debt.

The Constitution Act formed in 1986 granted Parliament full power to authorise the Crown to borrow money.

Prime Minister David Lange’s government passed the Constitution Act in 1986, which was a significant step in codifying (arranging laws) towards the country’s unwritten constitution. The Act consolidated key legal provisions and formally severed New Zealand’s remaining constitutional ties with the United Kingdom. While the David Lange government implemented significant reforms, his “unfinished work” regarding the constitution involved the stalled push for a written constitution and an entrenched Bill of rights. New Zealand does not have a single written constitution but instead an “uncodified constitution” that draws from various sources, including the Constitution Act 1986.

This presents challenges by making constitutional rules potentially vague and uncertain, potentially undermining citizens’ rights and creating difficulties for the judiciary to source laws. This system also relies heavily on common law and constitutional conventions for interpretation, which may be less transparent than a single written document.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is not supreme and can be amended by simple parliamentary majority and constitutional conventions are unwritten practices and traditions of behaviours of which are aimed to be followed consistently. In a country with an unwritten or uncodified constitution, like New Zealand, court decisions are made by interpreting laws derived from statutes, common law (judicial precedent), and established constitutional conventions, rather than a single constitutional document. Judges rely on their independence to apply the law and interpret statutes. “Uncodified” means something is not written down or arranged into a formal, single, systematic written code or document. When something is uncodified, its rules or principles exist in a variety of sources, such as judicial decisions, common law, statutes, and practices, rather than in a single, unified written text.

Problems with New Zealand’s unwritten law include a lack of legal certainty, difficulties in safeguarding citizens’ rights, and unclear accountability of public officials, especially concerning the Treaty of Waitangi This “uncodified” and “non-entrenched” constitution is pieced together from statutes, court decisions, and unwritten political conventions, which can make the legal landscape complex and vague. The absence of a single, codified document also places a greater burden on the judiciary to interpret and source the law, potentially empowering judges over Parliament and creating issues of accountability.

What exactly is the NZ government today?

It is described as a constitutional monarchy without a written constitution nor constitutional ties with the United Kingdom. David Lange initiated constitutional reform designed to instate legislation as a significant attempt to address New Zealand’s lack of a written constitution and its perceived “unbridled power” of the executive – but his work is incomplete. Unbridled power of the NZ government” refers to the concept discussed in Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s influential 1987 book, ‘Unbridled Power: An Interpretation of New Zealand’s Constitution & Government, which critiques the expansive and unchecked authority of the New Zealand executive.’ Palmer argued that the combination of a Parliament that could legislate anything with a rigid party system gave the elected government too much free reign. In New Zealand, Parliament is now sovereign, meaning it can make or unmake any law. Strong party discipline ensures that a majority government can pass legislation with little opposition, making the government’s will harder to challenge.
Is the government still a corporate entity? It’s a curious question. The New Zealand government – while claiming they are no longer a company – generates revenue primarily through taxes (income tax, GST, company tax), levies (like ACC levies), fees, investment income from state-owned assets, and the sale of goods and services. These earnings fund public services, infrastructure, and government operations, rather than being a profit-making “entity” in a commercial sense, though it does earn investment income and has stakes in companies. The City of London Corporation gains income from three primary funds: the City Fund, which collects local taxes (council tax and business rates), grants, and rental/interest income. So as you can see the difference is a little blurry.
The New Zealand Company was dissolved in 1858 after experiencing significant financial problems, questionable land dealings and disputes with Maori. Between 1840 and 1856, New Zealand was ruled by Governor Fitzroy who was appointed by Britain. He often clashed with the NZ company and its settlers. Such as the company’s continued survey of land in the Wairau Valley, which was disputed by Te Rauparaha and his nephew Te Rangihaeata. It was a major cause of conflict. FitzRoy investigated the Wairau Incident, which involved a violent confrontation between settlers and Māori, and his findings were often against the settlers and the New Zealand Company.

The New Zealand Company surrendered its charters to the Crown in 1850, who paid £268,000 for the company’s lands, and the company formally dissolved three years later. Key figures from the New Zealand Company were connected to the newly formed New Zealand government.

But colonisation was not solely a British deed, colonisation has occurred all throughout history. The Turks, Moores, Genghis khan, Alexander the Great, Chinese in Tibet, Romans throughout Europe and beyond, the Crusades, The America’s, and so it goes on. Riches systematically transferred to the victor, cultures stripped, citizens subjected to systems of impoverished servitude. Think Germany prior to WW2. The system of control was to place the nation in heavy debt.

I suggest that if colonisation was and always has been motivated by greed, that a different form of colonisation is happening right before eyes by way of the financial system. Have we not just gone through a recession? The closure of businesses throughout NZ. The diminishing middle class. Food prices. Fuel prices. Tax hikes. Rates hikes. Where we live, how we are educated, who gets tax breaks, whether we can have a home at all, ….influenced indirectly by the financial system. Big changes are coming to how finance is done, as the fiat system isn’t well.

Catherine Comyn (Ngāti Ranginui, Pākehā) begins her book ‘The Financial Colonisation of Aotearoa’ with the assertion that “colonisation is financial, and finance is political”. Comyn makes the argument that far from the mere technical management of money, finance and financial institutions were a key, if not dominant, player in the colonisation of this country
I’m not suggesting for a minute that racism did not occur, but I am suggesting that the motivation of colonisation was financial rather than racial. The original financiers of the City of London were of no single race; the City was a diverse center attracting stakeholders from various origins, though Jewish financiers were prominent in specific financial sectors by the 19th century. The city’s foundation as a Roman port and its continuous development as a trade hub attracted people of many backgrounds to its financial activities. Colonisation isn’t as simple as black and white. It seems clear that it was motivated by a different kind of colour…..the glitter of gold and the almighty green dollar with its tools of servitude, finance and debt being acutely intertwined.