Mike's Minute: Where are the rules protecting us from legal menaces?

 I've got a couple of questions around Mike Smith. 

Mike is back in the news because of his court case against big polluters. His case got upended by the recent Government move to block what they call "tort-based litigation" over climate change.

Dr OIiver Hartwich: What NZ must learn from Germany’s sudden €20 billion military meltdown

We have a new colleague at The New Zealand Initiative. Our latest senior fellow is Major General John Howard, retired. He built this country’s defence intelligence and is the only New Zealander ever given an executive role inside the United States’ Defense Intelligence Agency.

John is currently finalising a paper on New Zealand’s frigate replacement. I was reading a draft last week when I heard news from Berlin.

Ani O'Brien: Politicising a Tragedy - PSA takes the gloves off

New Zealand's largest public sector union increasingly sounds like an opposition party.

The death of a man in the waiting room toilets at Waikato Hospital’s emergency department is a tragedy. He went to hospital needing help and died before he could be treated. His family, and the community, deserve to know what happened, whether it was preventable, and what needs to change so it does not happen again. That is the serious version of this conversation. But unfortunately, we are in an election year and serious conversations are not what some of New Zealand’s unions appear to be interested in when a tragedy can be turned into a political opportunity.

Andy Oakley: For Social Cohesion, Should We Scrap the Terms Pākehā and Māori in New Zealand?

In today’s opinion piece, the question is a big one: Should New Zealand ban the words Māori and Pākehā?

Not just discourage them — I mean remove them from legislation, from government documents, from schools, and from official use entirely. For the sake of actual social cohesion, these two words have become more harmful than helpful.

Over the last decade or so, we’ve seen hundreds of words in the English language made politically incorrect. Words like “retarded”, “Oriental”, “homo”, “he/she”, and of course the N-word — a term used to attack people based on skin colour. So why are we still clinging to two words that were invented in completely different times and circumstances?

Let me give you some context. I spent my first twenty years growing up in Porirua, one of New Zealand’s largest Polynesian cities, among Māori and Pasifika people. I have a son connected to the tribes of Taranaki, and I’ve lived with Māori women on two occasions over the years. I’ve seen how these words affect people from both sides.

First, let’s look at what real social cohesion should look like — and then we’ll examine the history of these two words.

If you go to government websites like the Ministry of Social Development, you’ll find documents like the Te Korowai Whetū Strategic Framework. It’s not a great start. They use language that almost nobody in New Zealand even understands. The document talks about everyone thriving, belonging, and being respected. In practice it means pushing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion built on bicultural foundations.

I have to say, those ideals make me sick. They have only ever increased division in New Zealand — and everywhere else this kind of multiculturalism has been tried. Look at the riots across America and Europe. It’s the same failed experiment.

New Zealand is not a bicultural country, and we should stop pretending it is. We are one nation in Polynesia under a constitutional monarchy. Culturally, we all live the same way — we live in houses, eat similar food, go to work, play the same sports, drive cars or use public transport, and we’ve been intermarrying for over 200 years.

Successive governments since the 1970s and 80s have pushed us toward separation and division through Treaty politics and DEI. Before all that nonsense, New Zealand was far more united.

Economic historians point out that from the late 19th century through the 1960s, New Zealand was one of the richest and most egalitarian societies on Earth. According to the UN Human Development Index, the NZ standard of living was number one in the world in the 1950s, and our per-capita income was about 88% of America’s — one of the highest relative positions ever recorded. I was born at the end of that golden age in the early 1960s and experienced it. Every New Zealander, including those who identified as Māori, experienced it the same way.

There was almost no homelessness, no unemployment, no beggars on the streets, no gangs, no Treaty claims, and very few people complaining about their feelings. It was a better and more united country in every measurable way. And back then, the words Māori and Pākehā were seldom used.

My central argument is this.

The word Pākehā was made up between 1810 and 1815 by tribal people living in a Stone Age culture. These tribes had no central sovereignty, no formal property rights, and no universal human rights. The culture was extremely hierarchical. When they saw Europeans arriving in ships with weapons, tools, and a completely different way of life, they called them Pākehā — European foreigners.

Some people claim it referred to white skin, but that doesn’t hold up. There were already fair-skinned people here in the 1770s who were never called Pākehā. French Explorer Captain Crozet wrote in his 1771–72 diary:

“It is no doubt surprising that we should have found at this corner of the earth… three varieties of man: whites, blacks and yellows. It is most certain that the whites are the aborigines.”

I can only guess he made that last observation because black skin is an adaptation to a very hot climate, which New Zealand doesn’t have.

The term Pākehā was about cultural difference, not skin colour. Britain had become a constitutional monarchy with central sovereignty, laws, and equal rights under the Crown. That was the real gap.

Today, every person in New Zealand lives under the same constitutional monarchy, the same legal system, and the same property rights. The original reason for the word Pākehā no longer exists. Yet in recent years, it has become a derogatory term — used in exactly the same way as the N-word.

I believe that this has happened because our education system has pushed group identity instead of unity. It has taught children that “white colonisers” are the enemy of people who identify as Māori. You can see the results all over social media. Here are just a few examples I found in minutes:

1. “don’t use our Maori word then huh??..pakeha.Cheek of you pakeha that want to be called ‘kiwi’..especially you lot that keep trashing us Maori”

2. “Typical Keha BS! Blood quantum! Shows how much Keha still don’t understand Tangata Whenua!! You think you do! You don’t!”

3. “…pedophile will try anything to attack MAORI, pakeha wasn’t the first people here end of story, it’s all white people bullsh*t”

4. “You pakeha will regret creating all this sh*t, it will kick you all in the @r$e, Maori are stronger than ever and ready for anything you try to do, keep digging your racist hole, you are all getting exposed to your Neanderthal behaviour”

It’s everywhere. People use “Pākehā” or “keha” as a racial insult based on skin colour. But skin colour is all that’s left, because there are no real cultural differences between New Zealand citizens anymore. We all live the same way.

Now let’s look at the word Māori.

Before the Treaty was signed in 1840, there was no such thing as “Māori” as a single people. The tribes were known only by their own names — they were separate nations. The noun “Māori”, which tried to lump all tribes together into one political group, did not appear until after 1850 — more than ten years after the Treaty.

This matters enormously. The 1840 Treaty was not addressed to “Māori”. The English draft, completed by James Busby on 4 February 1840, was addressed to the chiefs and people of New Zealand — including the thousands of settlers already here. Article 2 guaranteed land and property to the chiefs, tribes, and all the people of New Zealand. Article 3 promised the rights and privileges of British subjects to the people of New Zealand, all of them.

The Treaty was designed to end tribalism and bring in one system of law and government under the Crown. It was an inclusive nation-building document.

The adjective maori simply meant ordinary or common. The political noun “Māori” was created later. Today, anyone with even a tiny amount of ancestry can claim to be part of the “Māori race” in legislation — even though anthropologists largely rejected the biological concept of race decades ago.

When schools push children to identify by race rather than as individuals, they are teaching tribal thinking. They are disrespecting the very ancestors who signed the Treaty to move away from tribal division.

Conclusion

Real social cohesion requires people to see themselves first as individuals responsible for their own lives, then as family members, then as members of communities, and finally as citizens of New Zealand.

New Zealand was at its best when we focused on being one people. If the government keeps driving separatism by pushing these outdated terms through the education system and racist legislation, it’s no surprise that we’re becoming more divided. What’s more, successive terrible governance has seen NZ drop from number 1 on the UN Standard of Living Index to 17th.

The 1840 Treaty was the mechanism that moved New Zealand away from brutal tribalism toward a constitutional monarchy where we are one nation of individuals. There is no longer any need for the racial concepts of Pākehā and Māori in legislation.

New Zealand’s tribal history should be studied and respected — warts and all. I have no problem with people who want to identify tribally, as long as they cover all the costs themselves. I just don’t choose to identify that way.

These two words were created in completely different times for completely different reasons. They no longer serve us. In fact, they are now being used as racial hammers to keep New Zealand divided.

So the question remains: Should we ban the words Māori and Pākehā for the sake of social cohesion?

What do you think? Let me know in the comments.

Andy Oakley is a national manager in one of the country’s largest mechanical companies and has been involved in the HEVAC, smoke control and construction industry for more than 35 years. He is also the author of Cannons Creek to Waitangi, a book that details how and why he made a treaty claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. This article was first published HERE

Dr Michael Johnston: Psychology journal controversy shows why professional bodies must stay out of politics

As a former academic, I know how onerous research publication can be. Before being published in a professional journal, an article must undergo peer review. Many articles don’t survive this process. Most require revision before both the reviewers and journal editors are satisfied.

Once an article has been published it becomes part of the permanent research record. Only when there is clear evidence of data fabrication or plagiarism should an article be retracted. Even then, both the article and the reasons for its retraction should remain on the public record.

Kerre Woodham: The school lunch programme's become more trouble than it's worth

From Michelin stars to school lunches, sublime, ridiculous. I think it's safe to say none of the school lunches on offer will be getting Michelin stars. Then the last lot probably wouldn't have either. A scathing report has been issued by the Auditor General, which says only 50% percent of the meals delivered by the new school lunch programme in 2025 complied with the Ministry of Education's nutrition standards. We haven't talked about the school lunches for a hot minute, have we?

Bob Edlin: Luxon is coy about which reports on homelessness he has read.....

Luxon is coy about which reports on homelessness he has read but gushes about how Michelin stars are shining on tourism

Our PM knows and reveals things which – so far as PoO can find – are not recorded in official statistics.

On the other hand, he won’t reveal some things which (PoO is sure) he does or should know.

David Farrar: Tamaki crossed the line

Brian Tamaki was reported as saying:

In a video posted on Facebook on Wednesday, the Destiny Church founder accuses Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi of purging Christians in the South Asian nation.

“He [Modi] is currently purging India of all Christians and burning church buildings down,” Tamaki said.

Friday July 3, 2026 

                   ⇩

Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan: Michael Laws won't be a good get for NZ First

Let me hit you with absolutely the weirdest political news of the day. Michael Laws, it's being reported, is going to announce he's running for New Zealand First.

The '90s called and want their man back.

Ryan Bridge: Only hungry children should be feed by the state

The government's looking to 'move on' from free school lunches for every kid in a poor school.

David Seymour told me this week they're looking at making changes, potentially tightening things up.

Breaking Views Update: Week of 28.6.26

Friday July 3, 2026 

News:
Google Maps integrates New Zealand voice to improve te reo Māori pronunciation
Google has announced a partnership with Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (the Māori Language Commission) to implement better pronunciation on its Maps software.

From today, Google Maps users will be able to select the New Zealand voice to hear Aotearoa place names the way they should sound.

The Leighton Smith Podcast: Dr Muriel Newman on this year's hugely consequential general election

Leighton Smith and Dr Muriel Newman discuss the ongoing constitutional shift toward iwi influence, co-governance and race-based policies. In this election year, New Zealand is arguably facing its biggest challenge to date.

Click to listen - Audio

Peter Williams: Selling food and tyres on the news

Is the cheerleading of expensive eating an appropriate use of TV news time?

Sometimes you just cringe at the content of the television news.

Saturday night was a classic. The New Zealand football team lost, predictably, to Belgium by 5 goals to 1 so ending their World Cup campaign.

Roger Partridge: Britain's Labour government can be a party of growth – but not like this

This column was first published by CapX, the online newspaper of London’s Centre for Policy Studies. It was written for a British audience, but its central argument comes from this side of the world. New Zealand's Fourth Labour Government and Australia's Hawke-Keating Labor government showed that centre-left parties can use market reform to achieve progressive ends. This piece suggests Britain's Labour Party should borrow that tradition.

“It is time for Whitehall to accept that growth cannot be ordered from the top down,” Andy Burnham said in his first major speech since returning to Parliament. “Instead, it can only be nurtured from the bottom up.”

He is right. The man about to enter Downing Street has seen what much of his party denies: prosperity is grown, not decreed, and the hand that tries to direct it from the centre usually throttles it instead. But the premise has a second half Burnham flinches from.

Richard Prebble: Should We Be Forced to Invest in SpaceX?

Christopher Luxon has announced that National will campaign this election to require New Zealanders to invest perhaps $12 billion a year overseas, with around $8 billion ending up on Wall Street.

That is not how he put it.

He announced that employee and employer KiwiSaver contributions will rise to 4 percent each and that KiwiSaver will be compulsory.

Yet that is the practical effect.

David Harvey: Skynet on the Brain

How an Old Literary Fear and a 1984 Blockbuster Are Quietly Writing Our AI Policy

When a senator warns that artificial intelligence could “end humanity,” when a tech executive testifies that we are “building a god we can’t control,” or when a newspaper runs a stock image of a chrome skull with glowing red eyes above a sober article about model evaluation standards, something curious is happening.

Bob Edlin: Maipi-Clarke - "Wording Error"......

Oops – Maipi-Clarke corrects what she boasted about her interest in corrections and blames a “wording error”

Māori Party firebrand Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, responsible for “The Haka Heard Around The World”, perhaps finds it challenging to communicate when she is not shouting her displeasure at the Government in the House of Representatives.

Centrist reports she has deleted a social media post “after appearing to claim that ‘65%’ of her work involved visiting rangatahi in ‘juvenile centres, correction centres or OT’.”

JD: Let Us First Establish the Basic Facts

Guest post on The Good Oil by JD

Time to stop fawning over TOP as the bright young things of New Zealand politics and take a look at how much of a threat they pose to the peace of mind, financial wellbeing and, by extension, the health of every Kiwi pensioner.

TOP makes several claims including:

David Farrar: Damien now anti mining

When Damien O’Connor was standing on the West Coast, he was pro mining. He was even accused of being out of step with his party.

But now he has left the West Coast, he is now passionately anti-mining. The Post reports: