Partnership is well established; we are emphatically two people divided by race.
- Dr John Robinson
The original apartheid
The policy of apartheid (an Afrikaans word meaning “apartness” or “separation”) became official in South Africa with the election of the Nationalist Party to power in 1948. However policies in the country, based along racial lines, dated back to the early 20th century. The successive governments of the Union of South Africa passed many laws giving preference to the white minority – under 20% of the population – and discriminating against other groupings – Blacks, Asians and Coloureds. However from 1948 onwards apartheid was fine-tuned to base life in South Africa on the principles of “separate development”.
The Population Registration Act was in Prime
Minister Daniel Malan’s words the basis
for the whole policy of apartheid. Fundamentally people were classified by
race/ethnicity. However, the legislation that followed essentially divided the
people into two broad categories - WHITES and NON-WHITES. These laws separated
the groups in the use of amenities, marriage and sexual relations, where people
could live, go to work or school etc.. Historian David Harrison in his book The White Tribe of Africa observed that
apartheid was designed to enforce separation in every sphere of life
from buses to bed. The bottom line was to keep the minority whites in firm
control of government and the economy.
Strengthening the separation
African administrations continued adding bricks to the apartheid wall, such as
- Native Resettlement Act
- Bantu Education Act
- Native Laws Amendment Act
- Extension of Universities Education Act
- Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act
- The Native Labour Act
- Native Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents Act.
last until 1990 when President F W de Klerk announced the abandonment of the
policy. In 1994, in its first democratic election ever, the African National
Congress swept to power and Nelson Mandela became president.
New Zealand’s road to apartheid – ignoring Treaty
Our brand of
apartheid is both more subtle and more blatant. Most of the public are probably
unaware that there are more than 100 pieces of legislation making special
provision for Maori rights and culture.
(The mainstream media are no help in
objectively educating the public, as the two biggest organisations – NZME and
Stuff - are dependent on government handouts and will not bite the hand that
Maori started with the 1974 Maori Affairs
Amendment Act which changed the definition of Maori to include part-Maori
with any degree of Maori ancestry. A key feature of subsequent laws was that
they were related to the imagined principles of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and to the
so-called partnership established between the Crown and Maori. For example the
1986 State-Owned Enterprise Act includes
the statement - Nothing in the Act shall
be inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The partnership aspect is often expressed in the
phrase: Special regard for values,
customs and beliefs of Maori people, as in the 1989 Oranga Tamariki Act. An extension of this partnership principle was
the need to consult with Maori as in the 1993
Biosecurity Act – “The Minister must consult with tangata whenua when making biosecurity plans”.
No need to talk with Chinese,
Samoan, Irish or any other group of New Zealanders. Separatism – the favoured
Maori and the rest - was well underway by the early 1990s.
However, on the
face of it, there was a big problem which has continued to be ignored - neither partnership nor principles were
mentioned in the Treaty. In the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi -
- Maori chiefs ceded the entire sovereignty of New Zealand (Nu Tirani) to Queen Victoria.
- The Queen guaranteed the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property (taonga) to the chiefs and tribes, and all the people of New Zealand.
- All New Zealanders were guaranteed the rights and privileges of British subjects.
This is the only valid Treaty - the 1840 Freeman and 1989 Kawharu
treaties are fakes. Te Tiriti
provided for equality for all natives and settlers, and there was not a
principle in sight. No partnership featured either for the obvious reason that
the Crown cannot constitutionally enter into a partnership with a particular
group of its people be they Welsh, Australian Aboriginals or Maori.
said We are now one people to each
signatory at Waitangi on February 6 1840, and Jacinda Ardern said something
similar after the mosque attacks in 2019.
However, the reality is that we are increasing becoming two people –
Maori and the rest.
Two United Nations declarations
Declaration of Human Rights 1948. New Zealand immediately signed up to it and there was no dissent in
the country. There are two articles of particular relevance related to
Article 1 - All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Article 7 - All are equal before the
law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Sadly in present-day New Zealand, Maori,
like the pigs in Animal Farm, are now
more equal than others.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007.
Helen Clark wouldn’t have a bar of it, but the devious and manipulative John
Key, being dependent on Maori Party support to stay in power, “sold his soul”
and allowed Pita Sharples to scuttle off to New York to secretly sign the
country up to the Declaration in 2010. Our country should have been declared
ineligible because Maori are indigenous to eastern Polynesia but not New
Like the rest of
us, the Polynesian ancestors of today’s part-Maori were immigrants and there
were people already living here when they arrived.
New Zealand’s version of apartheid is evolving
As in apartheid
South Africa, New Zealand classifies its people by ethnicity. Despite my best
efforts to claim I am a New Zealander, I am often lumped for official purposes
as European even though I have no ancestry from that continent.
Readers will be
very familiar with the constant use of ethnic statistics in New Zealand so
essentially we have an unwritten Population Registration Act. Ironically if our
part-Maori people – about 16% of the population - had been living in South
Africa in the apartheid era they would have been classified as “Coloureds”.
above, Maori get favoured treatment in most of our legislation and they have
seven special seats in parliament which cannot be justified. Even if you accept
that part-Maori should be specially represented, they currently have over 20%
of the seats. There is also a separate ministry for Maori and in the present
government a fifth of the cabinet led by Nanaia Mahuta are Maori. Furthermore,
in every budget there are always large allocations for Maori organisations and
education there are special places set aside for Maori and recently the
Marlborough District Health Board advertised many positions for which they very
obviously wanted Maori applicants. (Surely a breach of advertising standards?)
In local body politics, Councils have been encouraged to have special wards for
unelected Maori, and they are required to consult and work with local iwi – so-called
“Treaty partners” - on all issues.
rears its ugly head
Now the He Puapua document, based around the
non-binding requirements of the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights, has come
to light, having been kept secret for two years. It sets out a blueprint for
progressively giving more and more control of natural resources and infrastructure
to Maori, and setting up various separate Maori authorities on the road to
joint Crown-Maori government by 2040.
unconvincing bleatings that this is not
government policy some of its provisions have already been implemented or
are in the pipeline -
- Denying cities, districts and regions the right to have referenda on separate Maori wards.
- Pushing ahead with establishing a separate Maori Health Authority.
- Publishing a compulsory New Zealand History Curriculum for years 1 to 10 which is clearly designed to indoctrinate children in Maori history, heritage, beliefs and values.
- Plans to give Maori a key role in deciding issues related to water resources and land use.
Separatism the basis for New Zealand apartheid
Currently we do
not have the more extreme policies that the South African governments
implemented in the apartheid era and there are no pakustans where “European” New Zealanders are required to live.
However more and
more the part-Maori minority is being favoured, and as their power increases
the rest of us are losing some of our democratic rights. One gets the strong
impression that the vast majority of people with some Maori blood just want to
get on with their lives and get their fair share, but no more, of government
services. The drive for increased separatism is led by a small, vocal minority
consisting of iwi leaders, Maori politicians and ivory-tower Maori academics
who represent “Maori privilege”, as well as non-Maori fellow-travellers.
There is no
question that many part-Maori at the bottom end of the socio-economic ladder
have significant needs, like a smaller percentage of other ethnic groups. However as National deputy leader, part-Maori
Shane Reti has observed, health services should be provided on the basis of
need and not race. This is definitely the right road to greater equity for
those who are currently struggling.
current Labour administration is dominated by the Maori caucus led by Nanaia
Mahuta and Willie Jackson and they are the stroke paddlers in the He Puapua canoe. It is amazing that in the lead up to last
year’s election the Maori master plan flew under the radar of New Zealand First
intelligence. Was Winston Peters too preoccupied with concerns over information
leaks, the donations scandal, court cases and his responsibilities as Deputy
Prime Minister? If he had got to know, we would currently not have a
stand-alone Labour government and the implementation of Maori separatist policies
which are steadily undermining New Zealand’s democracy.
So long as the activists have power and influence in government, Maori separatism will increase and apartheid in New Zealand will intensify based on the myth of Crown-Maori partnership.
Roger Childs is a retired teacher who taught
History, Social Studies and Geography for 40 years.