David Lillis: Does New Zealand need a New Democracy?

Damian Grant has just published an excellent piece for Stuff - Like it or not, we've got a new democracy (Grant, 2022). It is both surprising and pleasing that Damian's article was published. Many others, such as Mike Butler, have also put into writing what many New Zealanders feel (for example, Butler (2022).

Indeed, we are at a difficult crossroads in New Zealand, where we are being pushed into accepting a new order and a new name for our country that has not undergone a referendum. It seems to me a form of bullying. Of course, Māori and other indigenous people across many countries were oppressed for several centuries but often were not themselves kind to others and indeed gained much from colonialism. The world has made great progress over the last half-century but we are undoing that progress very rapidly.

Others have observed that Three Waters is a very problematic idea that runs counter to the notion of democracy. Though many of us, including myself, should admit to not understanding in full the ramifications of enhanced involvement of particular groups in domains such as governance of water supply and regulation, we have fears that putting any one demographic constituency in a position of greater political and economic power than others (even if only in a single domain – water supply and quality, in this instance) will do harm because it is fundamentally anti-democratic and potentially very divisive over the long term as a constitutional precedent.

He Puapua is one of the most alarming documents I have ever read. It will sow the seeds of discontent and division for decades to come. We must oppose the current ideology while embracing equality and the rights of minorities, and commit ourselves to assisting all people on the basis of disadvantage rather than of race. We are not a bicultural society but instead a multicultural society that today includes people from all parts of the world.

On the question of the demarcation of science and indigenous or traditional knowledge - most probably it is true that many scientists know little of indigenous or traditional knowledge and may undervalue the genuine wisdom to be found there. Some Māori and others have made this point forcibly and quite correctly. But proponents of indigenous or traditional knowledge often betray an even greater ignorance of science. Recently I attended a meeting at which many scientists and researchers were present. We heard several Māori speeches, self-introductions and songs (wiata) from non-Māori and Māori people alike. Actually, it was very pleasant! But is it getting a little too much when it comes persistently from non-Māori and even from people born in other countries? Do they all mean it? Why do people born in Europe and the UK in particular now wear greenstone pendants and talk about their waka and their whanau?

On one level we may quite enjoy it but on another level we may find it deeply troubling. We hope that they comport themselves this way of their own volition and out of genuine respect for Māori. We hope that they do not feel under duress to comply in this manner. Are some of them virtue-signalling? We cannot know unless they tell us truthfully and we have no right to ask. Here in New Zealand we have significant Pasifika and Asian populations and a growing population of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle-East. Should we not have introductions and songs in their languages too and, if their indices and measures of health and wellbeing are as poor as those of Māori (which they are in the case of Pasifika and other small groups), then do we not have an argument for dedicated health ministries for those demographics too?

Towards the end of the meeting two Māori women stood up and called for decolonisation of science. Is science colonial and, if so, how exactly are we to decolonise it and whose science are we to decolonise? We can understand where they are coming from in relation to past oppression and their need to resurrect pride in their culture, language and traditional knowledge. However, I and many others have grave concerns about the He Puapua report, which recommends that mātauranga Māori (Māori traditional knowledge) be valued equally and resourced equally to “Western science”. Indigenous people, including Māori, and other minorities make valuable contributions in many areas in which science and technology play a part. Surely, all traditional knowledge ought to be valued and preserved but no traditional knowledge of any cultural group, anywhere in the world, should be taught as science until tested and shown to be valid through the methods of science. Nor is there the slightest justification for resourcing traditional knowledge equally to science, however valuable that knowledge may have been in the past.

Many Māori and other activists are doing what they consider to be the right thing for their people and we can admire their idealism. We recognise Dr. Ella Henry, for example, as a strong advocate on behalf of Māori, and her efforts should be appreciated. We should not doubt her good intent (and the positive intent of many others) and her most valuable efforts to empower Māori. However, assertions to the effect that indigenous science is equally valid and equally important as “Western science” are very worrying (for example, Henry, 2022). In specific cases they can be as valid but, unfortunately, mostly they are not, and the notion of “Western science” is demonstrably mistaken.

It is not a criticism of traditional knowledge or of the communities or societies that produced it that such knowledge cannot compare with the centuries of advances and investments that lie behind the modern physical and life sciences; for example, randomised controlled trials in medicine, molecular and atomic physics, evolutionary biology and developments in energy and climate science. We have duty of care to define clearly what sits within the ambit of science and that which lies beyond, just as we have a critical obligation to exercise the utmost rigour when we test the efficacy of newly-proposed cancer drugs and other treatments.

The idea that in any country traditional knowledge should be regarded as fully the equal of science and be resourced equally is astounding and, as a person who trained originally in physics and mathematics, and who worked in research evaluation for Government (for funding decision-making), I find it deeply disturbing that people buy into it, however well-meaning they may be. Similarly, incorporation of traditional knowledge into any national science curriculum is potentially very detrimental to the education of young people.

We should remember the following sentiments from the US Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Though the US has achieved many good things for all of its people, including its minorities, it has not always got it right and is only recently coming to terms with its racist past and addressing the inequities that emerged from that past. However, one critical message of the US Declaration is that every person is fully equal with every other – no more and no less. Every citizen should have equal opportunity of access to education, healthcare and to political and economic power. Here in New Zealand we include Asians, people from North Africa and the Middle-East, people of European origin and, of course, Māori and everyone else.

A second lesson is that we can take affirmative action by removing a Government that is causing damage to its people. Perhaps in New Zealand we can still do something about the current absurdity. We have a duty of care to our country to remain kind, embracing and inclusive - but to stand firm against a Government that may be well-meaning but that has lost its way.

References:

Butler, Mike (2022). Three Waters constitutional racism
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2022/11/mike-butler-three-waters-constitutional.html

Grant, Damian (2022). Like it or not, we've got a new democracy. https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130375041/damien-grant-like-it-or-not-weve-got-a-new-democracy

Henry, Ella (2022). https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=447018240680029

Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.