Sunday, December 4, 2022

David Lillis: The Media and Co-Governance

A Characteristic Media Piece

New Zealand is on a difficult path - one of advantaging a small minority on the basis of genetics or self-reported ethnicity. As we proceed along this path our media present co-governance as the desirable pathway to our future almost exclusively, and present dissenting opinions very rarely.


An article from a former mayor of Kapiti Coast is characteristic of what gets published in online and print media (Gurunathan, K, 2022). The author is undoubtedly a very decent human being who has contributed much to his community and who has the courage of his beliefs and, as a person of color, may well have experienced bias and racism and observed these things imposed on others. He favours re-defining New Zealand as a bicultural nation and evidently is comfortable with the reality that Māori constitute less than 17% of the total population and that very few are full Māori. However, like others, he appears to cast disagreement with co-governance as racism and appears to discount the possibility that dissenters articulate genuinely-held views.


He says:


“In a changing and challenging world of shifting geopolitics and existential threats, there is a natural tendency to hold on to old and familiar cultural ideologies.

Aotearoa New Zealand is a rare place where a treaty between a majority migrant population and an indigenous minority is being interpreted to explore and fashion a new identity, new laws and nationhood. It’s a difficult task in the best of times, but in a time of a contracting economy, this task is about to get fractious.

[Those who disagree – my words here] are not going to help, but surviving the severe test coming up in 2023 would mature us as a multicultural society in a bicultural nation.”

Indeed, there is a natural tendency to hold on to the old and familiar, particularly when we are the main beneficiaries. Perhaps we can classify this behaviour as a form of inertia, maybe underpinned by self-interest. But that objection in itself is no justification for a major reinvention of our society, ostensibly for the primary benefit of one group and possibly against the wishes of the majority. Why are we re-interpreting a treaty of nearly two centuries ago in order to explore and fashion a new identity and why will 2023 present a severe test unless we are being bludgeoned into a new normal, against the wishes of many? Whose new identity are we to fashion? Do dissenters really fan the flames of fractiousness, as the author claims, or do they hold a legitimate view? And just how are we to re-interpret this treaty?

Indeed, we live in a multi-cultural society. Visit the Wellington Region suburbs of Lower Hutt, Avalon or Newtown and we see many immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East, some of them fleeing poverty and warfare. We see relatively disadvantaged communities all over this country and they need a helping hand, just as much as anyone else.

More from the Media

Another interesting article was published recently in Stuff (Wilson, 2022). We agree in principle with the author’s expressed need for enhanced race relations and for improved social, educational, health and economic outcomes for Māori - but surely we should aim for positive outcomes for all disadvantaged groups. Here we read:

. . . it’s timely to remember that racists abide in all parties. They can be identified as the ones who object to the word Aotearoa and complain bitterly about the amount of te reo spoken on RNZ National. They disguise their racism behind fear and ignorance. Fear of what they’ll lose because “Māori are being given special treatment”. So “special” that, from the moment they are born, Māori are subject to grave inequity, right down to their shortened life expectancy.

Unfortunately, the author is probably correct in that we have racists in all parties, but also we have those who give themselves over to prejudice within all ethnic and cultural groups.  

Further, as many recent articles in Breaking Views and elsewhere have pointed out, colonialism has brought benefits too and it’s time to move on from the current focus on decolonization. We have no reason to object when others use the name “Aotearoa”, but many people struggle to understand why a new name is needed for this country. For them, this country is “New Zealand”, and will remain so until such time as a referendum says otherwise. Is an adherence to the historic name of our country based exclusively on racism? Do many people disguise their racism behind fear and ignorance, as the author suggests? Possibly so, but a dedicated research study is required in order to determine the truth or otherwise of that conjecture. Do people fear losing power because a minority is being advantaged, as asserted in this article? Most probably, some feel that way, but is not concern about preserving democracy a legitimate concern?  

The author is indeed correct in saying that Māori are subject to grave inequity, right down to their shortened life expectancy. So, too, are Pacific people and others. Pacific peoples’ health outcomes are about as poor as those of  Māori (see the appendix to this article for a summary of Pacific health and wellbeing, based on the Health Quality & Safety Commission report of 2021). Do we have an argument here for a Pacific Health Authority?

Unequal Health Outcomes as an Example

Why do we see unequal outcomes across demographic groups? I have discussed the issue of health outcomes in a previous article (Lillis, 2022a), but it is worth repeating the main issues here and it is worth considering again the World Health Organisation’s perspective on the social factors that influence health – the social determinants of health. They are defined as the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life (World Health Organisation, 2022). They exert great influence on health inequities within and between nations. The World Health Organisation provides the following list of social determinants of health:


1. Income and social protection
2. Education
3. Unemployment and job insecurity
4. Working life conditions
5. Food insecurity
6. Housing, basic amenities and the environment
7. Early childhood development
8. Social inclusion and non-discrimination
9. Structural conflict
10. Access to affordable health services of decent quality.

As stated in my previous article, the World Health Organisation suggests that the social determinants can influence health more greatly than healthcare or lifestyle choices and that they could account for between 30% and 55% of health outcomes. In addition, the contribution of sectors outside health to population health outcomes exceeds the contribution from the health sector (World Health Organisation, 2022). Indeed, we should include lifestyle choices (exercise, smoking, consumption of alcohol and eating habits) and genetics (e.g. predisposition towards diabetes, heart disease and obesity) in any complete list of determinants.

We may suspect that racism and bias exist within our health sector, but how severe are those issues? If the findings of the World Health Organisation are true, then the social determinants represent the principal factors that must be addressed. The same thinking should apply to education and other domains, such as income and employment within the sciences and other sectors.

He Puapua as an Aspirational Blueprint

He Puapua is a sort of wish list for the future of New Zealand. Most of its stated objectives will not be realised in practice, but many people, including Government, take it seriously. In there we see aspirational goals such as the following:

1. mātauranga Māori (Māori traditional knowledge) to be valued equally and resourced equally to “western science”

2. Tikanga Māori (practice and values) will be functioning and applicable across Aotearoa under Māori (national, iwi, hapū, whānau) authority and also, where appropriate, under Crown/kāwanatanga authority

3. Māori will be providing for Māori

4. The public service is bicultural and understands the ways in which it must support rangatiratanga (self-determination and ruling themselves)

5. Law, policy, processes and entities will support a successful bicultural joint sphere of governance and management of resources, taonga (treasures) and Crown lands

5. A bicultural, mātauranga-informed state service/kāwanatanga Karauna

6. Māori co-govern and/or co-design deliver services

7. Law, policy, processes and entities will support a successful bicultural joint sphere of governance and management of resources, taonga and Crown lands

As a former teacher and tertiary lecturer and, as a person qualified in physics and mathematics and who worked in research evaluation for Government, the notion that traditional knowledge of any cultural or ethnic group is to be valued equally and resourced equally to “western science” is astonishing, even given that this is an aspiration rather than a goal that is to be realised in practice. And should our public service be expected to become bicultural when our population is so diverse? Indeed, why should our public service support self-determination for one demographic group and not others? The authors of He Puapua would achieve more and would engender greater credibility if they had exercised some discipline in their imaginings of the future of this country and if they had made a greater attempt to recognise our diverse community, rather than focusing exclusively on one group.

It is understood that He Puapua is not a road map for the future but certain of its ambitions are being realised already. Are such objectives right for the people of New Zealand? Many of us fear that they are not because we are a democratic multicultural society rather than a bicultural society. Of course, we should remain open to constructive dialogue. We should be willing to change our minds if we hear compelling arguments that countermand our prior beliefs, but surely we must work collaboratively towards the good of New Zealand as a whole, rather than mainly of one cultural or ethnic group.

A Multicultural Society

Just what is meant by a multicultural society in a bicultural nation (Gurunathan, 2022)? Our population is indeed diverse and the relevant statistics for 2018 are as follows (Ehinz, 2022):

European - 70.2% or 3,297,860 people

Māori - 16.5% or 775,840 people

Asian - 15.1% or 707,600 people

Pacific peoples - 8.1% or 381,640 people

Middle Eastern, Latin American and African - 1.5% or 70,330 people. 

Here, our population statistics are based on total response ethnic groups, so that everyone is included in every ethnic group with which they identify and percentages add to more than 100%.

So, indeed we have significant populations of diverse ethnicities and backgrounds and all of them deserve both equal social, economic and political decision-making power and equal opportunity at the level of the individual. Unfortunately, we cannot ensure equality of outcomes and nor can we balance co-governance with “one person, one vote”, because co-governance is fundamentally undemocratic. We are being told that New Zealand is moving to a new kind of society and with a new name, but what about the wishes of the majority and of all of the ethnic and cultural groups within our country?

The term is “co-governance”. But what does co-governance actually mean? Of course, we have much online explanatory material here. For example, see 1 News (2022):

“Essentially, it’s the Treaty of Waitangi partners, the Crown and Māori, having equal seats around the decision-making table. The clue to its meaning is in its very name – “governance”. It’s not about handing over ownership, it’s about partnership in management”.

What are the essential details that underpin partnership in management between a small minority and Government? Where is partnership mentioned within the treaty and what about partnership with all other ethnic and cultural groups? We understand that many adherents of co-governance mean well and we recognise that certain groups still experience poorer outcomes than others, but there’s power and money to be had when any group has enhanced decision-making rights over, for example, water. As is by now very-well known, Three Waters concerns the delivery and management of clean drinking water supply and regulation; wastewater (sewerage) reticulation, treatment and disposal; and stormwater management. Recently, Government added coastal and geothermal water to the list. Who gave them that right?

The Treaty of Waitangi does not mention partnership. However, we are already moving down the path towards co-governance. Is this a positive journey for New Zealand – or is it not? Many of us fear that it is anti-democratic and will lead to division. We can indeed address inequity through other means, specifically though initiatives that attempt to meet peoples’ and families’ particular needs, rather than administered on the basis of genetics or self-reported ethnicity.

Don Brash has been criticised often for what many perceive as right wing beliefs, but he makes many very valid points in his articles on politics and the economy; for example, Brash (2022). There, he states that the only way to an harmonious future is to ensure that all citizens have equal political rights, and to deal effectively with social and other problems wherever they arise, irrespective of ethnicity.

The New Zealand Media

When observers publish opinion pieces such as those discussed in the present article, we may be confident that they do so with good intent and it is imperative that we consider very carefully what they say. They may present valid perspectives on social issues that are not obvious to others - especially on hidden biases that are not perceptible to those who never experience such things. But other perspectives are valid too and our media should give those perspectives equal opportunity within the public domain.

I cannot speak for others and can only speak for myself. All through my own life I have remained largely apolitical, focusing on my academic studies and trying to give of my best during my career (like most others), in my case as an educator and researcher. However, I have spoken up repeatedly on the question of bullying in our workplaces because I believe that this is a pernicious issue that must be addressed (Lillis, 2022b and 2022c). But today, like many others, I feel that I must speak up about co-governance because I believe that what is happening in our country at this time will lead to bad things unless there is a sufficient movement that puts an end to the current, very dangerous ideology. 

Appendix: The Health and Wellbeing of Pacific People

Here are some of the most critical findings that are discussed in detail within the Health Quality & Safety Commission report (2021):

Household Overcrowding and Home Ownership

The 2013 Population Census showed that Pacific groups constituted the highest subgroups for percentages of people living in crowded households. Pacific people were eight times more likely than Europeans to live in a crowded house (39.8%, compared with 20% of Māori). Pacific people were the least likely of all ethnicities to own their own home (33%, compared with 70% of Europeans).

We note that Pacific people are more likely than other ethnic groups to live in neighbourhoods of high deprivation (Ministry of Health, 2019). Approximately 24% of Pacific people (compared with 8.5% of Europeans) reported not having enough money to meet their everyday needs (Pacific Perspectives, 2019).

Employment, Income and Deprivation

Pacific people were less likely to be employed than all other ethnic groups. Pacific median weekly incomes were lower than those of other groups; the disparity being greatest for males. Pacific womens’ median weekly income was second lowest of all groups (marginally ahead of women of Middle Eastern/Latin American/African origin).

A higher percentage of Pacific children lived in poverty than Māori, European and Asian children.

In 2018 Pacific people ranked worst of all ethnicities within every category of deprivation in material standard of living. From Statistics New Zealand’s Wellbeing statistics, derived from the General Social Survey (Statistics New Zealand, 2019), we see that Pacific people reported keeping costs down in the previous 12 months by:

  1. Spending less on hobbies or special interests than they would like (80%)
  2. Delaying replacing, or repairing, broken or damaged appliances (71%)
  3. Cutting back on or going without trips to shops or local places (70%)
  4. Putting up with feeling cold (59%)
  5. Going without fruit or vegetables (56%)
  6. Postponing or putting off visits to the doctor (38%)
  7. Not paying bills on time due to shortage of money (38%).


At 37%, Pacific people rated highest of all ethnicities (by 11 percentage points) in being very limited by money when buying or thinking about buying clothing or shoes.

Life Expectancy

On average, Pacific people lived six fewer years than non-Māori, non-Pacific, and this gap has widened over the last 20 years.

Medical Conditions

Compared with children from other ethnic groups, Pacific children experienced higher incidence of medical conditions, including asthma, dental problems and ear and skin infections. The Health Quality & Safety Commission report reminds us that such conditions are associated with social determinants of health, including poverty and overcrowding. The report goes on to say that such inequities in child health outcomes are long-standing and indicate gaps and insufficiencies in current models of care. Failures within screening programmes that originally were designed to identify issues early, in addition to problems relating to access and quality of care, contribute to poor outcomes for Pacific people.

Pacific people experienced greater incidence of long-term conditions, including diabetes, gout, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, cancer and asthma. The report states that long-term conditions are the most important contributors to the life expectancy difference between Pacific people and non-Māori, non-Pacific.

Younger Pacific adults experienced twice the prevalence of diabetes than Māori, and five times the rate of European and other ethnicities.

Pacific and Māori patients were far less likely to receive a kidney transplant as their first treatment for kidney failure than New Zealand Europeans.

Pacific people and Māori had the highest rates of acute coronary syndrome (heart attacks and unstable angina) but the lowest rates for receiving angiography (an investigation that checks for blocked or narrowed blood vessels in the heart) and coronary revascularisation (a procedure for unblocking obstructed or disrupted blood vessels, restoring blood flow to the heart, reducing chances of long-term damage and improving chances of survival).

Pacific people and Māori had the highest rates of death or recurrent myocardial infarction (i.e. a heart attack) within a year of their initial acute coronary syndrome.

Mental and Emotional Health

The Health Quality & Safety Commission report suggests significant prevalence of mental health and wellbeing issues connected with increasing complexity of ethnic and other identities. Probably, such issues are already leading to rising rates of depressive symptoms and attempted suicide among Pacific youth, in particular, among those living in high deprivation areas. Thankfully, rates of actual suicides are falling.

End of Life

Hospices provide palliative care, delivering psychosocial, spiritual and physical needs at the end of life. The Health Quality & Safety Commission report states that most deaths in European populations occur after age 65 years, but that 44% of deaths within Pacific populations occur among those under 65 years.


Brash, Don (2022). Neither Te Tiriti nor the Treaty implies co-governance.

Ehinz (2022). New Zealand has a diverse ethnic mix.,%25%20Pacific%20peoples%20(381%2C640%20people)

Gurunathan, K. (2022). Fanning the flames of fractiousness around co-governance.

Health Quality & Safety Commission (2021). Bula Sautu – A window on quality 2021: Pacific health in the year of COVID-19. Wellington: Health Quality & Safety Commission.

Lillis, David (2022a). Systemic Racism and Bias in New Zealand.

Lillis, David (2022b). Workplace Bullying in New Zealand.

Lillis, David (2022c).  Sorry - but “nga Mihi” isn’t good enough!

Pacific Perspectives (2019). Health System Review - Pacific Report. Wellington: Pacific Perspectives.

Statistics New Zealand (2019). Wellbeing statistics: 2018.

Wilson, Janet (2022).  Good faith in repairing race relations is the way forward


World Health Organisation (2022). Social Determinants of Health

1News (2022). Explainer: What is co-governance?

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.


Kiwialan said...

Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand, they arrived in canoes from Hawaii 600 odd years before European sealers, whalers and settlers. Their myths relate to the dead's spirit leaving from the top of the North Island to return to their Homeland. From their own mouths !!! Enough of all this bloody indigenous crap, we are all here because of our immigrant ancestors. Kiwialan.

Peter Young said...

Your are correct David, to be very concerned. Willie Jackson, and his belief that we have "nothing to fear" from co-governance, is very wrong and the divisiveness it creates will destroy our Nation. We are now a multicultural society and for it to thrive, we need to be equal in the eyes of the law and in everything else, in terms of opportunity. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, for the latter breeds indolence and preferential treatment, which is what Jackson is keen to embed.

As for Kiwialan, you are absolutely right. The arrival date of your waka should have nothing to do with it.

Robert Arthur said...

Pro maori Letters to Editor mean little. There is an army of indoctrinated Maori Studies students and graduates out there, many with time on their hands in make work maori based employment, and who have practised plausible propaganda spiel for years.
As I regularly observe, 50/50 co governance is maori control because maori act as a coordinated bloc and for various reasons, especially threat of cancellation, at least one other strings along. A typical outcome is the Tupuna Maunga ongoing fiasco. The new Council team will hopefully be more critical. A few million dollars spent in non productive wrangling is nothing when mana is to be had.
Incredibly the Herald recently published an article by Shane Jones rubbishing co governance. Perhaps the Editor was too overcome by the customary flood of curious metaphor to notice. Or is the msm moving to a bet both ways?
Apparently Labour intend to pull back on plugging co governance prior the election. Jacinda has demonstrated the total lack of need to link stated policy to actual intended. Possibly we critics should have held fire to nearer the election (as presumably/hopefully National intends) when Labour may have terrified more than just a small alert section of the population.

MPHW said...

Excellent piece David. Thoughtful and fair minded.

Anonymous said...

It is all scarily similar to ww2 where one group thought they had the superior race and deserved more say and speclial rights over all others. It is quite simply very sinister.

Doug Longmire said...

Excellent piece, David.
And, yes Kiwialan, to add to your accurate point, Maori are NOT "indigenous" to New Zealand.
As you point out, they arrived here in various canoe journeys, from Polynesia. Their homeland is in fact Taiwan, where they are descendants of an indigenous tribe from there. They carry the Taiwanese DNA, and their language (eg - numbering) is very similar to Taiwanese of today.

Also - they were not the first settlers here, as has been discovered through various carbon dating and archeological artifacts.

Anonymous said...

Why should political power be shared on any basis with brown supremacist part-Maori who have elevated their brown ancestors while turning their white ancestors into a toilet bowl to identify monoculturally as ‘Maori’?

The Treaty of Waitangi — unless that part was in the bit the rats ate — makes no provision for Maori/part-Maori to have any kind of group rights not also enjoyed by their fellow-citizens.

In a free society, rights accrue to individual citizens on the basis of citizenship, not to groups on the basis of group membership.

Even someone who stuck their hand up 30 seconds ago at a town hall swearing-in ceremony is a citizen, with all the rights and duties of citizenship.

Prior arrival or the ancestral longevity of some ancestors in the land is no basis for special privilege.

Group rights are anathema to a free society.

They create two classes of citizenship where only one existed before.

They require the intervention of an activist government taking rights off one group of citizens to bestow on another.

And one person’s positive discrimination is everyone else’s negative discrimination.

Racism occurs whenever a group of people with an ethnocentric membership base creates or colonises a system to afford themselves separate, different, or superior rights on the basis of group membership.

When brown supremacist part-Maori bang on about‘racism’ they don’t mean getting rid of any ‘racism’ that might exist.

Just placing it under new management.


Never forget that it’s about utu.



Since the Maori phenotype tends to predominate as a determinant of appearance, there’s a raft of people who’re way less than half-Maori by blood quantum, but who ‘look Maori,’ that is they have brown skin and Polynesian features.

Shut out of ‘whiteness’ by how they look, and identified both by their own and outsiders as ‘Maori’ whether they like it or not, many will aggressively adopt a collectivist ‘Maori’ identity and an adverserial attitude towards the majority culture they don’t feel fully part of.

We’re back under the house again aged four, boobing our little hearts out when we realised the brown wouldn’t scrub off our skins.

And what does the hurt child do?

It seeks to hurt by way of retaliation and make others suffer too.

As Commie racemonger, Frantz Fanon reminds us: “The native is an oppressed person whose constant dream is to become the persecutor.”

So what is often referred to as “The Treaty Grievance Industry” is perhaps better understood as ‘The Indigenous Pretender Grudge Industry.’

The ‘Maorification
of Everything’ going on right before our largely unseeing eyes is intended to shove everyone else’s noses in the racial/cultural turd by way of payback.

Quite why public policy should validate someone else’s adjustment issues eludes me, especially as it’s wrecking our country and rapidly approaching the point at which only a civil war won by the good guys will suffice to turn it back.

Anonymous said...

Nor did today’s supposed universal preference for Aotearoa seem to extend to any of the 200-odd chiefs who spoke at, or wrote to, the Kohimarama Conference of 1860. All used Niu Tirani in referring to the name of our newly-constituted country in their own language.

Maori sovereignty peddlers, who regard the Treaty of Waitangi as written in concrete if it advances their agenda, have smuggled Niu Tirani out of the public discourse, because its use in the Maori Treaty text underscores the total bankruptcy of their claim to nationhood. “Aotearoa” has been smuggled in as a substitute.

Aotearoa was originally an alternative pre-European Maori name for the North Island. In the late 19th Century, European authors, William Pember Reeves and Stephenson Percy Smith began using it as a fanciful name for the entire country in Maori-themed works of fiction penned for the Education Department’s School Journal.

That’s all it ever was.

But with propaganda like the School Journal (catch them when they’re young and they’re yours for life), the misnomer took root and expanded over succeeding decades until it became established ‘fact.’

Michael King, who penned the widely recognised “Penguin History of New Zealand," wrote:

“[I]n the pre-European era, Maori had no name for the country as a whole. Polynesian ancestors came from motu or islands and it was to islands that they gave names.”

At the time of the signing of the Treaty, the North and South Islands had a variety of Maori names, the most popular being Te Ika-a-Māui (the Fish of Maui) and Te Wai Pounamu (the Waters of Greenstone) respectively.

There are traditional myths, such as Aotearoa being the name of the canoe of Kupe, the explorer, and that he named the land after it; or that Kupe's daughter called out ‘‘He ao, He ao'' (‘‘a cloud, a cloud'') over the first sighting of land.

Again, these are quite possibly further inventions of European romanticist, Stephenson Percy Smith, who famously popularised the Kupe myth and the notion of mass Maori migration via a ‘Great Fleet.’

Anonymous said...

Kupe’s first landfall, coming from Polynesia, would have been somewhere on the coast of the North Island. He (or indeed anyone in his canoe) would have had no inkling there was another large island further south.

Clearly, if traditional myths detail actual events, any pre-European Maori reference to “Aotearoa’ would have applied to the North Island only.

As Muriel Newman has noted in an article on the New Zealand Geographic Board’s proposed name changes to the North and South Islands, “The Board ruled out Aotearoa for the North Island on the basis that it has been popularised as the name for New Zealand.”

Popularised, indeed!

“Fabricated” is a far better word.

The race-hustlers peddling “Aotearoa” intend to insinuate into the public mind, through as many channels as possible, their “One country, two peoples, our country” mantra. Constant repetition then creates the false impression of widespread popular support for what is really nothing more than a propaganda claim.

The majority of New Zealanders, including most Maori, have been through an education process which has convinced them the original Maori name for the country was Aotearoa, and that this was arbitrarily replaced by European ‘invaders.’

This has been reinforced by such things as the Douglas Lilburn overture, Aotearoa; the Maori language version of our national anthem; and by propaganda from virtue-signalling ‘wokesters’ in Government departments, the education system, the churches, NGOs, the mass media, the advertising industry, and big corporates.

Adolf Hitler’s Big Lie technique as outlined in Mein Kampf: repeat a lie over and over until it becomes the ‘truth.’

Not really getting over at present.

Responding to a Press Council complaint about it routinely using “Aotearoa” in its publications, media giant, Stuff falsely asserted on 12 March 2021:

“‘Aotearoa’ is widely used in New Zealand as the alternative name of this country, and in our assessment is accepted as such by most New Zealanders.”


On 1 November 2020, Radio New Zealand reported a Research New Zealand poll finding scant appetite for a name change. Some 71% wanted to retain “New Zealand” as the name of our country. Just under 20% of respondents thought New Zealand should change its name to “Aotearoa/New Zealand.” A bare 10% wanted the country’s name changed to “Aotearoa.”

Let’s have a binding public referendum and end this horse wallop once and for all.

Bring it on, I say!

Anonymous said...

And note Te Tiriti has no "h" in wenua and Maori are not referred to as the the tangata wenua, but the "tangata Maori" - ordinary or common people, i.e. not The People or the indigenous people of The Land, which we all know they were not as the Treaty rightfully records.

Unknown said...

Re racist health care: a clinic in Wellsford provides FREE appointments to local Maori. Why? Because "if they had to pay they wouldn't come"! I wonder whether, if Maori have to pay for their healthcare under their own system, they would not come!