But of all the problems we face, perhaps none is as important as this: do we want to continue to be one of the few democracies in the world where every citizen has equal political weight, or do we want to become a society where political influence is determined by who our ancestors were?
Put another way, what did the Treaty of Waitangi really say, whether in the Maori language or in English?
Increasingly, perhaps since the late 1980s when the Court of Appeal referred to the Treaty as creating something akin to a partnership, the Treaty is being understood to mean that those with a Maori ancestor have some kind of preferential constitutional status.
In early 2021, the current Government was forced to acknowledge that they had commissioned a report in 2019 on how the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) should be implemented. That report, He Puapua, envisaged the New Zealand state being essentially divided into two by 2040 (the bi-centenary of the signing of the Treaty in 1840), with different health systems, different legal systems, different education systems, even different Parliaments, one for those with some Maori ancestry and the other for the rest of us.
“Not Government policy”, the Prime Minister insisted, but continued on an aggressive programme to make that segregated society a reality: the division of the taxpayer-funded health system on racial grounds; strong pressure on local government to create Maori wards; handing effective control of the country’s entire water infrastructure to Maori; mandating the appointment of unelected Maori to the Canterbury Regional Council; making it easier for those with a Maori ancestor to switch to the Maori electoral roll; and more.
And this commitment to creating two kinds of New Zealander – those with a Maori ancestor and those without – has recently infected the entire public sector – our schools and universities, the public service, the Reserve Bank, state-owned media (RNZ and TVNZ).
A few months ago, there was a petition signed by thousands of university academics demanding that seven Auckland University professors who had dared to cast doubt on whether matauranga Maori was equivalent to science be disciplined.
Not long ago, the Assistant Governor of the Reserve Bank gave a speech entitled “The Future is Maori”.
The mainstream media has been offered substantial financial support on condition that the recipients of that largesse sign up to the Government’s view of the Treaty, that it created two kinds of New Zealander in partnership.
I’m told that a few weeks ago somebody who hoped to migrate to New Zealand from Ireland was told by Immigration New Zealand to submit a 1000-word essay on the Treaty as part of his application.
The Resource Management Act has long required local councils to consult with Maori before they make planning decisions, and that requirement has been progressively strengthened to the point where Maori tribes are effectively given a veto power over many local council decisions. In Tauranga, a much-needed expansion of the Port of Tauranga has been held up for years by tribal intransigence.
Late last year, there was an uproar when the mayor of Kaipara denied a newly-elected councillor the right to open a council meeting with a Maori prayer (karakia). I strongly suspect that had a Christian with no Maori ancestry asked to open the council meeting with prayer, she would have been told that the council was a secular institution and a prayer would be inappropriate.
I recently attended the first meeting of a newly-elected council. Male councillors sat in the front row; women councillors sat in the row behind. There were four speeches in the Maori language, with no translation provided, even though the great majority of the councillors and of the members of the public in attendance had not the faintest clue about what was being said. It struck me that this would have been entirely appropriate on a marae, where Maori should clearly be free to determine whatever ritual they choose. But it was grossly inappropriate in a ratepayer-funded facility to rank men ahead of women, and simply rude to give speeches in a language which very few of the audience understood.
The increasing use of Maori words in official documents, on signs and in taxpayer-funded media is nuts if it is intended that most of the population understand what is intended. I have always supported taxpayers’ funds being used to support the teaching of the Maori language to those who wish to learn it. But it is crazy to imagine that the Maori language will ever be more than a curiosity, in much the same way that some Catholics still hanker after the continued use of Latin. New Zealand is hugely fortunate that English is our primary language, as it is the nearest thing there is to a truly international language. Using taxpayers’ funds to teach kids who can’t read and write English effectively how to speak a few words of Maori is crazy.
Much of our problem stems from a failure to understand the Treaty of Waitangi, or the context in which it was signed. Before Europeans arrived in New Zealand, Maori society was very basic by any standard – no written language, no wheel, no metal tools, no concept of legal ownership, widespread cannibalism and female infanticide. The inter-tribal Musket Wars of the early part of the nineteenth century resulted in a massive loss of life – more deaths in the few decades before 1840 than in all the subsequent wars that New Zealanders have been involved in.
The Treaty of Waitangi was intended to put an end to that, and was eagerly sought by many of the tribal leaders as a way of ending those inter-tribal wars (and perhaps as a way of fending off a French conquest). It involved the chiefs accepting the sovereignty of the Queen, and being guaranteed in return the full possession of their property and “the rights and privileges” of British subjects. In other words, the Treaty unambiguously guaranteed all New Zealanders equal rights.
Indeed, if it had not guaranteed equal political rights, we would now have to discard it and start afresh because there can be no lasting peace in any society where some citizens have a preferred political status by virtue of birth.
As we look to the election, it seems clear that Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party all subscribe to the view that those with a Maori ancestor should have a preferred constitutional status as compared to the rest of us.
Christopher Luxon has said that National rejects “co-governance in public services” and that is certainly a good start. But it was National that signed New Zealand up to UNDRIP in 2010 (something which the Helen Clark Labour Government had refused to do) and created the Marine and Coastal Area Act, which the courts are now interpreting to give tribes customary title over potentially huge amounts of the coast. Too often, National has railed against a Labour Government policy when in Opposition, only to continue that policy largely unchanged when in Government. As a former Leader of the National Party, and somebody with many friends in the National Party caucus, I regret that I don’t feel terribly optimistic about National’s willingness to reverse the racist nonsense we now see all around us. I hope that between now and the election they can give me more confidence.
Winston Peters has been vague on many issues, but on the issue of race he has been consistent throughout his political career. He is strongly of the view that all New Zealanders, no matter their ancestry, should have equal political rights. The question which hovers over New Zealand First, however, is whether they can again get back above a 5% share of the Party Vote: if they don’t, then a vote for New Zealand First would be a wasted vote.
Which leaves ACT and David Seymour. I admit that I have a strong preference for ACT for a whole lot of other reasons also, but on the issue of race, and whether New Zealanders should all have equal political status, David Seymour has been absolutely unambiguous. He favours the repudiation of the UNDRIP on the grounds that we already have in Article III of the Treaty a guarantee that all New Zealanders have equal political rights. He is surely right: there can be no basis for treating some New Zealanders as having any kind of constitutional preference to any other New Zealander. Any other path leads eventually to disaster. We owe it to our grandchildren to get it right.
Dr Don Brash, Former Governor of the Reserve Bank and Leader of the New Zealand National Party from 2003 to 2006 and ACT in 2011.
Increasingly, perhaps since the late 1980s when the Court of Appeal referred to the Treaty as creating something akin to a partnership, the Treaty is being understood to mean that those with a Maori ancestor have some kind of preferential constitutional status.
In early 2021, the current Government was forced to acknowledge that they had commissioned a report in 2019 on how the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) should be implemented. That report, He Puapua, envisaged the New Zealand state being essentially divided into two by 2040 (the bi-centenary of the signing of the Treaty in 1840), with different health systems, different legal systems, different education systems, even different Parliaments, one for those with some Maori ancestry and the other for the rest of us.
“Not Government policy”, the Prime Minister insisted, but continued on an aggressive programme to make that segregated society a reality: the division of the taxpayer-funded health system on racial grounds; strong pressure on local government to create Maori wards; handing effective control of the country’s entire water infrastructure to Maori; mandating the appointment of unelected Maori to the Canterbury Regional Council; making it easier for those with a Maori ancestor to switch to the Maori electoral roll; and more.
And this commitment to creating two kinds of New Zealander – those with a Maori ancestor and those without – has recently infected the entire public sector – our schools and universities, the public service, the Reserve Bank, state-owned media (RNZ and TVNZ).
A few months ago, there was a petition signed by thousands of university academics demanding that seven Auckland University professors who had dared to cast doubt on whether matauranga Maori was equivalent to science be disciplined.
Not long ago, the Assistant Governor of the Reserve Bank gave a speech entitled “The Future is Maori”.
The mainstream media has been offered substantial financial support on condition that the recipients of that largesse sign up to the Government’s view of the Treaty, that it created two kinds of New Zealander in partnership.
I’m told that a few weeks ago somebody who hoped to migrate to New Zealand from Ireland was told by Immigration New Zealand to submit a 1000-word essay on the Treaty as part of his application.
The Resource Management Act has long required local councils to consult with Maori before they make planning decisions, and that requirement has been progressively strengthened to the point where Maori tribes are effectively given a veto power over many local council decisions. In Tauranga, a much-needed expansion of the Port of Tauranga has been held up for years by tribal intransigence.
Late last year, there was an uproar when the mayor of Kaipara denied a newly-elected councillor the right to open a council meeting with a Maori prayer (karakia). I strongly suspect that had a Christian with no Maori ancestry asked to open the council meeting with prayer, she would have been told that the council was a secular institution and a prayer would be inappropriate.
I recently attended the first meeting of a newly-elected council. Male councillors sat in the front row; women councillors sat in the row behind. There were four speeches in the Maori language, with no translation provided, even though the great majority of the councillors and of the members of the public in attendance had not the faintest clue about what was being said. It struck me that this would have been entirely appropriate on a marae, where Maori should clearly be free to determine whatever ritual they choose. But it was grossly inappropriate in a ratepayer-funded facility to rank men ahead of women, and simply rude to give speeches in a language which very few of the audience understood.
The increasing use of Maori words in official documents, on signs and in taxpayer-funded media is nuts if it is intended that most of the population understand what is intended. I have always supported taxpayers’ funds being used to support the teaching of the Maori language to those who wish to learn it. But it is crazy to imagine that the Maori language will ever be more than a curiosity, in much the same way that some Catholics still hanker after the continued use of Latin. New Zealand is hugely fortunate that English is our primary language, as it is the nearest thing there is to a truly international language. Using taxpayers’ funds to teach kids who can’t read and write English effectively how to speak a few words of Maori is crazy.
Much of our problem stems from a failure to understand the Treaty of Waitangi, or the context in which it was signed. Before Europeans arrived in New Zealand, Maori society was very basic by any standard – no written language, no wheel, no metal tools, no concept of legal ownership, widespread cannibalism and female infanticide. The inter-tribal Musket Wars of the early part of the nineteenth century resulted in a massive loss of life – more deaths in the few decades before 1840 than in all the subsequent wars that New Zealanders have been involved in.
The Treaty of Waitangi was intended to put an end to that, and was eagerly sought by many of the tribal leaders as a way of ending those inter-tribal wars (and perhaps as a way of fending off a French conquest). It involved the chiefs accepting the sovereignty of the Queen, and being guaranteed in return the full possession of their property and “the rights and privileges” of British subjects. In other words, the Treaty unambiguously guaranteed all New Zealanders equal rights.
Indeed, if it had not guaranteed equal political rights, we would now have to discard it and start afresh because there can be no lasting peace in any society where some citizens have a preferred political status by virtue of birth.
As we look to the election, it seems clear that Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party all subscribe to the view that those with a Maori ancestor should have a preferred constitutional status as compared to the rest of us.
Christopher Luxon has said that National rejects “co-governance in public services” and that is certainly a good start. But it was National that signed New Zealand up to UNDRIP in 2010 (something which the Helen Clark Labour Government had refused to do) and created the Marine and Coastal Area Act, which the courts are now interpreting to give tribes customary title over potentially huge amounts of the coast. Too often, National has railed against a Labour Government policy when in Opposition, only to continue that policy largely unchanged when in Government. As a former Leader of the National Party, and somebody with many friends in the National Party caucus, I regret that I don’t feel terribly optimistic about National’s willingness to reverse the racist nonsense we now see all around us. I hope that between now and the election they can give me more confidence.
Winston Peters has been vague on many issues, but on the issue of race he has been consistent throughout his political career. He is strongly of the view that all New Zealanders, no matter their ancestry, should have equal political rights. The question which hovers over New Zealand First, however, is whether they can again get back above a 5% share of the Party Vote: if they don’t, then a vote for New Zealand First would be a wasted vote.
Which leaves ACT and David Seymour. I admit that I have a strong preference for ACT for a whole lot of other reasons also, but on the issue of race, and whether New Zealanders should all have equal political status, David Seymour has been absolutely unambiguous. He favours the repudiation of the UNDRIP on the grounds that we already have in Article III of the Treaty a guarantee that all New Zealanders have equal political rights. He is surely right: there can be no basis for treating some New Zealanders as having any kind of constitutional preference to any other New Zealander. Any other path leads eventually to disaster. We owe it to our grandchildren to get it right.
Dr Don Brash, Former Governor of the Reserve Bank and Leader of the New Zealand National Party from 2003 to 2006 and ACT in 2011.
7 comments:
Thanks again Don. I have always admired and agreed with your perception of a true and just democratic society. Unfortunately your words only appear on limited forums. They need to go mainstream. The question is, how can that happen.
Well said - and starting with a clear explanation of the hard facts of co- as a system of government to replace democracy.
The government has said this topic will not be discussed in 2023 - that says everything about the true importance of this issue and the real commitment of a certain minority faction to its installation by stealth without consultation with NZ citizens.
A snap election ASAP could help stem the profound damage to the fabric of NZ society.
My family is Maori and I am hoping the 2023 election will restore New Zealand back to Don's vision for all Kiwis irrespective of race.
You may wish to remember National and Act formed a coalition with the Maori Party in 2008 when they didn'need their number to govern.They then signedth UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights in 2010. Then repealed the Foreshore and Seabed legislation in favour of their Marine and Coastal Areas mess - which has now seen over 500 cases before the courts with iwi claiming the coastal areas all around New Zealand. National along with Act introduced the Waikato River co-governance arrangements, and the unelected Maori representation on the Auckland Super-City. How about - That the Treaty of Waitangi was a partnership - it was not! That maori never ceded soverignty in the 1840 - their Chiefs did! That the Treaty was about a universal franchise for Maori - it did not exist! National's Luxon is far to new to Politics and reading his National Party Conference makes his position on Maori obvious. Concern about the over $1 billion dodgy Treaty settlements under Key and Findlayson (Lawyer for Ngai Tahu). Luxon could make a good Finance Minister. Seymour works hard but does not seem to have the depth needed when he is still embedded in the Labour Party's Geoffrey Palmer's rewrite of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty was drafted by Busby on the 4th Feb 1840 and the same signed on the 6th at Waitangi where it was signed by the Chiefs and around the country. No confusion - they understood it. Finally, Luxon and Seymour by all means should be standing for the next Election but there can only be one Leader with the experience, common sense and certainly to have one vote, one flag and one people - Winston Peters!
The first and foremost thing to be done would be to eradicate our current polical system. ( i.e. Parliamentary Reform )
It can now, so obviously be seen, that not a shred of democracy exists as Partys represent their own agenda and ideology which is NEVER fully exposed at an election. One vote every three years is not a democracy. The mess New Zealand is in today is proof that the present system which has been used for decades has been hoodwinked and infiltrated by traitors.to/of Democracy, Sovereignty and Freedom of choice.
Thank you, Don, for continuing to show courage in stating what should be obvious to the vast majority of us. We need more people to follow your example and attack the twisted lies of the minority, so that eventually many of those Labour-voting fools can see the truth. They need to be contradicted on every possible occasion, perhaps especially when they choose to describe their opponents as “racist”. That should be regarded as a badge of honour!
Yes I agree with Di and with the next Anonymous. It is very much a matter of trust. I do trust Winston, but it is hard to see that he can prevail against the rest. I feel we are so alone and wonder what it is we lost when Helen Clark took us out from under the Privy Council. How I long for honesty and rationality - which I'm only realising we seem to be losing in our own judiciary. I knew politicians could be a bit slippery but I understood that that's the nature of the game - you can't please everybody. But I thought the Court was the place where every effort to reach the TRUTH would happen - until I read of 'activist' judges. What? Yes, I would like to some revision of our Parliamentary system, but who could we trust to oversee the process?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.