John Robinson: Recovering the social contract; Government and public together

Take back control of the narrative

A revolution in accepted, established thinking in government, media and amongst officials has taken New Zealand deep into racism (described as ‘Jim Crow racism’ in the first of these three articles).  Many see the damage and want to re-establish key principles, central for a counter-revolution.  That revival of community values, the re-capture of ‘hearts and minds’ (feelings, beliefs, knowledge and understanding), emphasising facts over myths, has been described as the return to an egalitarian ‘social contract’ in the second of these articles. 

The takeover, which has been building up over almost 50 years, is extensive and backed by a wide range of organisations that are committed to the cause, heading ever more openly towards two separate race-based governments and systems of law.  The fightback will take some years (or decades) and much effort by many of us.  

The focus here is on the changes that must be brought about by those in power, in the current government, to set free the energies of many in the community whose voices have been silenced by the growing all-pervasive censorship, including control of media which present biased claims while blocking actions by those who dare to disagree with Maori (‘indigenous’) exceptionalism.  When the voices for equality are allowed to be heard, many of us can write letters to the editor, be heard on national television and organise local meetings to voice a deep belief in those principles of freedom, equality, unity, and sovereignty that have for centuries been basic to our civilisation – a way of life that has been shown to work in practice but is now severely undermined.  All those who wish to speak up can then join together in a partnership, of those in government, to assist and support one another to gain control of the narrative.

Action within the government sphere

 

While National, under the leadership of Christopher Luxon drags its feet, showing no commitment to the principles set down in the coalition agreements, ACT and New Zealand First are moving ahead, and deserve our support (even from those, such as myself, who are not in accord with many of their other policies).  The government has put an end to most outrageous reorganisations of previous government such as Three Waters and the Maori Health Authority.

The Treaty Principles Bill proposed by ACT opens up the debate with calls for equality, unity in a sovereign nation, and security of property ownership, which are, indeed, contained in the three articles of the original Treaty of Waitangi.  But while that idea of well-defined guiding principles points in the right direction, they are going about it in the wrong way by linking those principles to the Treaty, which has been stripped of its initial meaning and completely rewritten by the Waitangi Tribunal.  They are playing into the hand of the opposition and inviting the disruption which has quickly arisen.  

A second problem has arisen as the second principle, relating to security of ownership, has been rewritten and turned on its head.  

This creates a problem for those who support the direction but not this approach.  The way out of that conundrum is simple: “The best way forward would be to drop any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi from the Bill and simply state the principle (or principles) that should guide New Zealand into the future.”[1]  We can all send in submissions pointing that out.

The Waitangi Tribunal continues to proclaim a role as de facto governing body for New Zealand, most lately with its criticism of the policies of the elected government, “Nga Matapono – The Principles: The Interim Report of the Tomokia Nga Tatau o Matangireia – The Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry Panel on The Crown’s Treaty Principles Bill and Treaty Clause Review Policies”; as if had the right to direct the elected government.  It must go; it was set up by government and can be closed down by government.

Ways in which the government can tackle the attitudes of officials and the advice forthcoming, and reassert the primacy of Parliament over the Courts in setting and defining law, have been considered elsewhere in NZCPR articles. [2]

 

Obstructions to independent thought, research, employment, reporting, speech, publication

 

The focus here is on setting free the voices of the many across the community who have been silenced by the machine of Maori separatism, the extensive ‘Treaty industry’, which has come to set the conditions of the current social contract.[3]

Some of my own experiences show how controls have become widespread, removing the voices of any challenging analysis and creating a conventional narrative that is providing a distorted picture of New Zealand history, with a disturbing social contract calling for separate rights, governance, and laws.[4]

For more than a decade (1986-2000) I was a consultant to Massey University Dean of Business Studies and then Te Puni Kokiri CEO, Ralph (Ngata) Love, with shorter studies for the Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit (Stout Centre, VUW) and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust.  This involved gathering data, studying relevant reports, selecting and following key social indicators (health, education, justice, etc.), preparing an analysis of trends over time, and forming a picture of past evolution and future prospects.  The focus was explicitly on data with no reference to any directions that might be provided by the rewritten Treaty of Waitangi or political correctness.

I then met up with the Treaty industry when I ran into trouble with the Crown Forestry Rental Trust over a demographic study of northern South Island Maori.  The demographic recovery indicated that colonisation had done much good, and did not point to any harm linked to the sale of land, but that factual conclusion was the wrong message for the clients; I did not find what I was employed to find, and before being paid I was directed to alter the report to imply “a disastrous impact of colonisation”.  

Later that same insistence on an assumed picture, even when the facts said the very opposite, came from the New Zealand Population Review, when a paper on Maori nineteenth century demographics was turned down because “it was essentially promoting a particular political viewpoint i.e. that European colonisation was beneficial for Maori”.

I understood that I did not fit with their requirements, as I wanted to report facts that contradicted the dominant narrative; there would be no further opportunities for such consultancy.  This was a direct experience of the manipulation of research.

Some years later, an article caught the attention of Tross Publishing, who printed books that I wrote about early New Zealand history, and then concerning the increasing racial division, which have continued from 2011 until this year.

Eventually the facts and opinions found in Tross books began to bother the establishment and on Saturday 4 December and Sunday 12 December, 2021, TV1 News broadcast an appeal to bookstores and libraries (including schools) to refuse to stock books by Tross Publishing – a call to ban those books.  The two broadcasts, which are available online, were headed “Educators say publishers’ books anti-Maori, hateful and untrue” and “Company accused of anti-Maori publishing promoting books at schools” – without any justification for those false claims and no right to reply.[5]  Thay had at first asked to interview me, but this was withdrawn after our reply that “Dr Robinson would be prepared to discuss this important issue openly so long as he be accorded fair treatment by your media outlet.”  

So too with letters to the editor, an important way for ordinary people to express an opinion.  Once my letters had been accepted in several papers and journals, but these steadily dried up until only the Northland Age would print letters that spoke against the current orthodoxy.  Then in 2021, the Editor, Peter Jackson, phoned to tell me that an article that he had accepted would no longer be published as he had been instructed to forward any such material higher up the organisation’s chain of control for vetting, establishing a censorship system that removed the choice from the Editor to the paper’s owner, NZME (New Zealand Herald).  That year I was first banned, then silenced.

Well, I had given several talks that had been well-received, without any fuss but these, too, were deemed unacceptable. In 2016, I turned up to talk to a Petone group to find an empty unlit hall – the committee changed their mind and cancelled without telling me.  In 2018, the Otaki Historical Society told me that I was too ‘controversial’ to be considered as a speaker (I was gathering information on the movement of Ngati Toa, Te Atiawa and Raukara iwi to Kapiti and had hoped for a lively discussion, adding to the information that I had gathered).  

One small success was in 2013 when I challenged the Te Papa Head of Research, Claudia Orange, to include someone with a different viewpoint to speak in a debate within the series on Constitutional review in focus.  I was surprised to find that my knowledge was not matched by the other participants; much of the current call for inequality is based on empty rhetoric rather than historical evidence.[6]  We will succeed if only we can be given a chance to be heard.

The range of blocking action from one person’s experience shows the extent of the reach of the ideology of indigenous dominance and the depth of the takeover of the national psyche, with a wide range of restriction and losses: of employment (unless one was to make the alternate choice, submission to an alien ideology), of dialogue through writing books and letters to the editor, of expression and sharing through talks.  As well as the loss of opportunities to hear from, and debate with, others.

This has been a common enough list of blockages to freedom of speech, shared by many others.  Throughout 2023 many became familiar with the noisy unruly behaviour of demonstrators who were determined to prevent meetings from proceeding as Stop Co-Government meetings were disrupted.  Their crude aggressivity and refusal to listen to, or even allow, any other opinion than their own was evident – as was the inability of the police to guarantee the basic rights of those who wished to widen the debate and call for equality.  That was across the country, with a repeated pattern of council refusals, organised disruptions, and inadequate official action.

One other example of many is the decision of the NZ Herald publisher, NZME, to not run a planned advertisement from Hobson’s Pledge in August 2024.  A first advertisement, which had appeared on the front page of the Herald (“Restore the Foreshore and Seabed to public ownership”), plus the inside cover (“We are all New Zealanders”) had been considered “controversial”.  How many of us have been shut up when we dare to follow this dreaded ‘controversial’ path: to ask questions, to find solutions, to share knowledge – to challenge their hegemony?

 

Call for help – for government to open the doors

 

We all want to remove blockages, censorship, and mob action – to move to open debate where all points of view can be openly expressed.  There must be a freeing up of the citizenry; when people feel and believe that their voices matter, there will be demands on local groups and authorities to allow free speech.

There is no aim here to limit free speech, to replace authoritarian action with yet more authoritarian action.  Rather, we must allow to those who call for racial division the rights that they have refused us.  All may demonstrate but without threats and meaningless disruption, acting with regard for the rights of others.

I just want to think for myself, to ask questions and seek answers by gathering facts, to gain an understanding, to tell of what I found, to meet and discuss with others – joining in a national effort.  To play a small part in making this a decent, civilised, equal and caring society.  I, like many others, am prevented from doing so, and I ask government for help – so that I can help them in return, where we all care for what has been happening to our country.  That is the point of these three blogs.   

A start can be made with public organisations where government ministers have some control.  I once joined a debate at Te Papa, and more is possible there.  Te Papa’s Board is accountable to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, who appoints the Board.  Paul Goldsmith should propose a series of talks and discussions to open up debate, to break the current hold of Maori exceptionalism.

There are other institutions which regularly schedule such dialogue, which has been severely curtailed.  The National Library is another, with its powerful Komiti Maori.  It is part of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Minister is the Minister of Internal Affairs.  Brooke van Velden can also insist on talks which present an egalitarian viewpoint.

The Media and Communications Minister appoints members of the RNZ and TVNZ Boards.  We can hope for less biased reporting than in the past (no longer with ill-informed attacks such as that on Tross Publishing), and Paul Goldsmith can discuss ways to provide a wider range of programs, reflecting the experiences and views of all New Zealanders.

Then there is the considerable tertiary sector: eight universities, 16 publicly funded polytechnics and institutes of technology; 3 wananga, over 240 TEC-funded private training establishments, 12 Industry Training Organisations (ITOs), and a small number of other organisations – autonomous, publicly funded institutions.  There is there a degree of oversight: the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), which funds and monitors their performance, is accountable to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment.  Penny Simmonds can use her considerable influence to similarly request challenging debate.  For example, a 2022 Constitutional Conference Korero held at Auckland University, designed “to present arguments and options for constitutional transformation to realise Maori rights in te Tiriti o Waitangi, He Whakaputanga and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[7], should be countered with a discussion of a constitution for all the people.

The schools, too, can be opened to the diversity of views, particularly for the older students.  The Minister for Education, Erica Stanford, can insist that a variety of opinions, reflecting the diversity of cultures within New Zealand, are heard from.

Then there are the many organisations not under government direction.  Government, and its constituent political parties, should make use of their widespread influence (including on local body councils) to more aggressively insist on equality in the use of public assets – such as meeting halls that were refused to Stop Co-governance.  Once ordinary people, who now feel (quite realistically) powerless, find that they are able to hold meetings, the way will be opened to true freedom of speech.  This may be the most useful way to open the debate, spreading the right to free speech and bringing the involvement of a wide range of community expertise.

The call here is to produce an atmosphere free of blockages and threats.  There are many who are ready to join in and help to build an egalitarian social contract; just give us a chance. 

References

---

[1] John Robinson 2024. Just equality: The simple path from confusion to common sense.  NZCPR Guest Editorial.  https://www.nzcpr.com/just-equality-the-simple-path-from-confusion-to-common-sense/#more-39885

[2] For example, https://www.nzcpr.com/spotlight-on-the-courts/ and https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/10/roger-partridge-tools-to-rein-in.html  which points to The New Zealand Initiative’s new report, “Who Makes the Law? Reining in the Supreme Court”.  https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/who-makes-the-law-reining-in-the-supreme-court/

[3] John Robinson 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing.  Pages 91-109

[4] John Robinson 2022. Regaining a nation: equality and democracy. Tross Publishing.  Pages 125-126, 149-157

[5]  https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/12/04/educators-say-publishers-books-anti-maori-hateful-and-untrue/ and https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/12/12/company-accused-of-anti-maori-publishing-promoting-books-at-schools/

[6] Constitutional review in focus at Te Papa, 25 August 2013, radio broadcast at  https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2566320  

[7] John Robinson 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing.  Page 116

Dr John Robinson is a research scientist, who has investigated a variety of topics, including the social statistics of Maori.  His recognition of fundamental flaws in the interpretation of nineteenth century Maori demographics led him to consider the history of those times in several books.