Jack McDonald says voters are “looking forwards, not backwards.” He’s partly right. New Zealanders are looking forward — but what they’re leaving behind is a decade of cultural and ideological overreach that crept into public policy with little public consent.
The 2023 election result wasn’t a fluke. It was a reset. Voters had grown weary of seeing government departments, schools, councils and funding systems quietly reshaped around an expansive and contested interpretation of Te Tiriti — one never clearly endorsed by Parliament or put to voters. That backlash wasn’t extremism or “right-wing populism.” It was ordinary people signalling they’d had enough.
What the Treaty-in-Schools Debate Really Shows
McDonald points to a petition signed by school boards as evidence of broad public support. What it actually highlights is how politicised parts of the education sector have become. Parents sense it. Teachers who question the direction feel it. And the Government knows it.
The change Education Minister Erica Stanford announced did not strip away Māori rights. It removed a legal requirement for school boards to "give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi", with the government stating that the Treaty is a Crown obligation, not one for parent volunteers. In practice, that phrase became a gateway for political content well beyond what many families consider appropriate for classrooms.
The Government’s move was about refocusing schools on fundamentals: literacy, numeracy, attendance and behaviour — the things parents consistently say matter most. Describing that as an “attack on Māori” is exactly the kind of rhetorical escalation voters are rejecting.
Yes, Stanford met with iwi. That’s part of being a responsible minister. Listening respectfully doesn’t mean handing over policy-making authority. Engagement is not the same as allowing interest groups to set education law for the whole country.
Māori Wards and Democratic Choice
McDonald points to the retention of Māori wards in some areas as proof of public support for his wider constitutional vision. It proves something else: New Zealanders value local choice.
Where communities wanted Māori wards, they voted to keep them. Where they didn’t, they voted them out. That’s democracy — even if the outcome isn’t always what activists prefer. Notably, referendums were only labelled “racist” when they produced the “wrong” result.
The pattern wasn’t ideological. It was practical, local, and grounded in community priorities. That’s the kind of decision-making this Government has moved back toward.
The Real Divide Isn’t Ethnic — It’s Practical vs Ideological
McDonald frames the Government as “anti-Māori” while sidestepping the issues voters are actually focused on:
Most Māori families want what everyone else wants: safe neighbourhoods, decent schools, reliable healthcare and real opportunities to get ahead. These aren’t “culture wars.” They’re everyday expectations — and for many, they’ve been buried under layers of compulsory ritual, bureaucratic Treaty directives and identity-driven policymaking.
Moving Forward — Just Not the Way McDonald Imagines
McDonald argues that opposition to ideological policy is an imported “culture war.” But the push for race-based governance, ancestry-based co-governance and ever-expanding Treaty obligations owes more to activism than to everyday New Zealanders.
What voters are asserting is a simple, enduring principle: equal citizenship, equal treatment under the law, and a public service judged by outcomes, not symbolism.
New Zealanders aren’t going backwards. They’re rejecting the idea that national identity and public policy must be filtered through a single ideological lens. They want a government that governs for everyone — not just for the loudest or most organised voices.
The Government isn’t being “left behind.” It’s doing what voters elected it to do: bring the focus back to delivery, fairness and common sense.
And that — far from being backward — is how New Zealand actually moves forward together.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
What the Treaty-in-Schools Debate Really Shows
McDonald points to a petition signed by school boards as evidence of broad public support. What it actually highlights is how politicised parts of the education sector have become. Parents sense it. Teachers who question the direction feel it. And the Government knows it.
The change Education Minister Erica Stanford announced did not strip away Māori rights. It removed a legal requirement for school boards to "give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi", with the government stating that the Treaty is a Crown obligation, not one for parent volunteers. In practice, that phrase became a gateway for political content well beyond what many families consider appropriate for classrooms.
The Government’s move was about refocusing schools on fundamentals: literacy, numeracy, attendance and behaviour — the things parents consistently say matter most. Describing that as an “attack on Māori” is exactly the kind of rhetorical escalation voters are rejecting.
Yes, Stanford met with iwi. That’s part of being a responsible minister. Listening respectfully doesn’t mean handing over policy-making authority. Engagement is not the same as allowing interest groups to set education law for the whole country.
Māori Wards and Democratic Choice
McDonald points to the retention of Māori wards in some areas as proof of public support for his wider constitutional vision. It proves something else: New Zealanders value local choice.
Where communities wanted Māori wards, they voted to keep them. Where they didn’t, they voted them out. That’s democracy — even if the outcome isn’t always what activists prefer. Notably, referendums were only labelled “racist” when they produced the “wrong” result.
The pattern wasn’t ideological. It was practical, local, and grounded in community priorities. That’s the kind of decision-making this Government has moved back toward.
The Real Divide Isn’t Ethnic — It’s Practical vs Ideological
McDonald frames the Government as “anti-Māori” while sidestepping the issues voters are actually focused on:
- the worst school attendance rates in decades
- falling academic achievement
- soaring grocery and power bills
- overstretched hospitals
- and a public sector increasingly crowded with consultants while frontline services struggle
Most Māori families want what everyone else wants: safe neighbourhoods, decent schools, reliable healthcare and real opportunities to get ahead. These aren’t “culture wars.” They’re everyday expectations — and for many, they’ve been buried under layers of compulsory ritual, bureaucratic Treaty directives and identity-driven policymaking.
Moving Forward — Just Not the Way McDonald Imagines
McDonald argues that opposition to ideological policy is an imported “culture war.” But the push for race-based governance, ancestry-based co-governance and ever-expanding Treaty obligations owes more to activism than to everyday New Zealanders.
What voters are asserting is a simple, enduring principle: equal citizenship, equal treatment under the law, and a public service judged by outcomes, not symbolism.
New Zealanders aren’t going backwards. They’re rejecting the idea that national identity and public policy must be filtered through a single ideological lens. They want a government that governs for everyone — not just for the loudest or most organised voices.
The Government isn’t being “left behind.” It’s doing what voters elected it to do: bring the focus back to delivery, fairness and common sense.
And that — far from being backward — is how New Zealand actually moves forward together.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
27 comments:
Here’s the thing: when people start banging on about “equal treatment” and “one law for all,” they’re not defending fairness, they’re defending their comfort zone. It sounds tidy, like something you’d put on a bumper sticker, but it’s not reality. Co‑governance isn’t some radical plot, it’s about finally recognising the imbalance that’s been there all along. You don’t fix a stacked deck by pretending everyone’s holding the same cards.
And let’s be honest, people leaving New Zealand aren’t running from “divisive politics.” They’re leaving for work, for opportunity, for cheaper groceries and a shot at getting ahead. It’s the economy, not ideology. The public’s already shown what they think — just look at the response to the Treaty Principles Bill. Kiwis aren’t fractured, they’re focused. They want a government that delivers, not one that hides its failures behind buzzwords about unity. The real divide isn’t between left and right…it’s between those doing the work and those spinning the story.
Well argued
@Anonymous 10.48am - “Equal treatment” isn’t a comfort blanket — it’s the foundation of a liberal democracy. Dismissing one law for all as a bumper-sticker slogan is a rhetorical dodge to avoid the real issue: once the state starts allocating power and rights by ancestry, equality before the law is gone. Co-governance isn’t about fixing a stacked deck; it’s about replacing universal citizenship with permanent political categories. That’s not justice — it’s institutionalised division, and it locks outcomes to identity rather than individual rights, responsibility, or consent.
And the idea that ideology has nothing to do with people leaving New Zealand is willful blindness. Of course people move for jobs and costs — but policy drives those conditions. When businesses face regulatory uncertainty, parallel governance structures, and race-based decision-making, investment stalls and talent leaves. The public response to the Treaty Principles Bill doesn’t prove unity — it proves fatigue. Voters are tired of being told that disagreement equals moral failure, and that fairness means unequal rules. The real divide isn’t between “spinners” and “doers” — it’s between those who believe the law should treat citizens equally, and those who think equality is something to be managed away.
Referendum now - do NZers want democracy or ethnocracy. Long overdue.
PS The outcome could reveal a lot about why NZers are leaving.
Kiwis are bailing because they’re sick of doing all the right things and still going backwards, mate. Wages are lagging while the cost of everything from rent to Weet-Bix has gone through the roof, housing feels like a rigged casino, and across the ditch you’ve got better pay, cheaper living, more jobs, and sunnier weather calling their name. They’re looking at the numbers, looking at their student loans, looking at the house prices, and saying, “Love you, New Zealand, but I’m not sticking around just for the scenery.”
As an example we see the Deputy Mayor of Napier unable to acknowledge democracy.
Race based wards voted out yet she pushes for unelected people to get a vote.
Those councillors that have voted for unelected to have a vote should resign.
We can have equality, meaning we all start off with equal opportunities but we can't guarantee equal outcomes. Families naturally have much to do with this. People do well whatever their ethnicity, if they have a good education, good nutrition and good values from their parents which lead to self respect. "Should we be responsible for those who don't have these advantages?". There are only so many people we can take responsibility for, in my view. "Do we bring the high achievers down to make the low achievers feel better?" That's where people go off on a tangent. We are losing high achievers from New Zealand.
For decades NZ has tried to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. For example, the Min of Ed succeeded in substantially lowering our kids’ educational achievements. That’s what equity does for you. Our productivity stats have been woeful all my working life. In more than one workplace I saw people stabbed in the back for working too hard - mustn’t set the standard too high! Our tall poppy syndrome runs deep. And now we have the big maori sea anchor trying to drag the whole country back a couple of hundred years. Little wonder high achievers are bailing. Yes, some things are starting to change, but others are not. Despite the mandate given at the last election, the political will has been stubbornly absent. Looking at you National…
New Zealanders never got the opportunity to give there opinions on the Treaty bill.
The Wellington elites believed those who elected them into office couldn't possibly understand the complexities of one government for all. Under one law for all.
Those parties voting against. All hypocrites and traitors to Democracy.
They sure did mudbrayyipper.
(a) 92% of those who voted in the general election opted for parties who didn’t have it as their policy.
(b) Public submissions were allowed and were overwhelmingly against.
(c) And there was the small matter of one of the largest and most well organised peaceful protests in modern times saying “no thanks”.
But apart from that, sure, no-one got to have a say! Outrageous!
In our case co governance is about creating imbalance not resolving it. It is about domination of one ethical group - or rather the people that claim to represent it - over the rest of the population. In a country that is made of immigrants from so many ethnicities. Where many of the immigrants came to the end of the world believing that NZ offers equal opportunities. What do we expect them to do when they find that this is not the case?
I think anon at 10.48 is recommending apartheid ?
It's amazing how many declare that the vast majority disagree with the proposed referendum, yet were to scared to allow it to go to the public for a vote.
If it was such a sure thing why not just let it happen.
Anon 2:58 reminds me of the classic Monty Python bit:: what have the romans ever done for us. But with less aqueducts and more democracy.
CXH unaware we live in a representative democracy. I sure as heck don’t agree with tax breaks on non-productive capital (thanks a lot, landlord lobby) but didn’t get to vote on that. I was looking forward to the new ferries and infrastructure with a proper lifespan next year too, but nope, no vote on that either.
Them’s the breaks, CXH, them’s the breaks.
Anon at 2.58 is not informed of the facts surrounding the TP Bill:
1. submissions reached record numbers. It was decided by National ( in charge) that 10
" support" submissions would be counted as 1 single submission due to " the similar text".
So, 30.000 (minimum) submissions of support were counted as just 3000.
2. Maori submissions were unlimited with opportunities for all sorts of groups to submit.
3. National Minister Meager ran the Select Committee competently but oversaw a rigged process.Luxon said he would" spike this Bill " to ensure its failure. This was done. But voters will not forget Luxon's action - he prevented citizens from expressing their opinion on equality - as per Article 3 of the Treaty.
The refusal to hold a referendum on democracy speaks volumes - whatever the outcome, only this action will count as the people's preference.
Right on CXH. We need a Principles Bill referendum. Let the people decide. Those like Anon 2-58 don't want one as they know what the result would be. Also have a referendum on Maori seats in Parliament. As for Anon 2-58 and your "largest and most well organized march in modern history" comment. You sound like Donald Trump! Cut back on the Kool Aid
Essentially it was Ardern who declared that Maori were the Master Race and should be given ultimate power over every NZer.
Then she bullied everyone in an administration role into following her demands.
Now these people are an indelible blot on our democracy.
Surely, the same people are looking at what is destroying NZ and developing a conscience, and starting to push back on their ingrained indoctrination ?
Why are people leaving New Zealand? Well as sixth-generation New Zealanders who left New Zealand permanently in mid 2023 my spouse and I sold up and left precisely and principally because of the 'Maorification' policies of the Ardern Government. But for those policies, we would have remained. However, we could see where those policies will inevitably lead - division, conflict, violence, and economic decline. We don't want those things in our future, so, heartbreakingly, we chose to move away and make new lives elsewhere.
Further to comments mentioning the merits or otherwise of the Treaty Principles débâcle (no other word for it), I deliberately trawled through a large sample of the submissions and determined that it was a pure case IMHO of quantity vs. quality where the latter must have clearly been ignored. Put another way, those for the bill were by and large well considered and detailed in their arguments as opposed to those against which in the main were either unintelligible blather or completely baffling in their twisted 'logic'. Yes, it is to Luxon's lasting shame that he denied us the referendum by 'spiking the bill', the result of which I'm almost certain would have gone the opposite way to the result we saw after the Select Committee performance.
Anon 2-58. your comment about 92% of voters voting for a party who didn't have treaty principles in their manifesto is misleading. Its one policy of many. Doesn't mean people were against it.
Of course some radicals don't like the Treaty Principles Bill. It would legally define them. The current "principles" are like tikanga in that people make them up to fit their purpose at the time. The gravy train for lawyers and others would end overnight. Couldn't possibly have that situation could we.
I have to counter Janine's summary of ' children do well if they have a good education, good nutrition and good values obtained from their parents.
I certainly don't underestimate the contribution
parents make to children's wellbeing but particularly the education aspect is what I question.
My mother taught intensive phonics to 1500 remedial reading students privately in a high decile area . The parents of these failing children were professionals and business people who had exemplary child rearing practices and only the schools could be blamed for their failure. This idea that parents are to take the blame for educational failure was a progressive education idea promoted first in the 1960s from sociologists. Up until then schools were blamed for declining standards.
Progresive educaion has no conscience about
the numbers of students who fail in the basics
because unbelievably they have no actual interest in academic achievement . Its focus is and always has been on social engineering
Progressive education also has no concern for discipline being seeped in the sentimental ideas of a nut case J. J. Rousseau who is largely responsible for the current crazy child-centered education we have which is a vital ingredient of
progressivism.
The battle we have in education is progressivism vs traditional and scientific traditional education. All this equity stuff is pure progressivism evading the issue ,as always , of focusing on effective academic achievement including discipline.which is precisely what Maori need.
Gaynor
Lots of people in this thread went to the same school as CXH. Wikipedia has a good introduction to our parliamentary system works. I hope this helps!
Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy or electoral democracy, is a type of democracy where elected delegates represent a group of people, in contrast to direct democracy. Nearly all modern Western-style democracies function as some type of representative democracy: for example, the United Kingdom (a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy), Germany (a federal parliamentary republic), France (a unitary semi-presidential republic), and the United States (a federal presidential republic).
Hi Gaynor. What I meant was parents need to make sure their children attend school. I personally think success is quite simple. Attend school, attend school well fed( a parental responsibility), parents take an interest in their children, try to have a stable home life. I have seen poverty first hand. We do not have poverty in New Zealand. We have apathy. Obviously not all children will end up brain surgeons, however give them every advantage. Don't expect your neighbour to do it.
I’m still thinking about masculinity and how that slots in.
As long as the diabolical Whole Language reading method dominated in our schools I would suggest it was better if students actually
didn't go near a school. You see this method particularly as manifest in Reading Recovery has been proved by an American statistical research project to cause students to develop a sort of instructiomal dyslexia whereby they were worse off than if they never had any WL reading instructional at all . It damaged their brains and made them unable to become readers.
Having dealt with many hundreds of students with reading problems we recommended they did homeschooling until they became proficient
readers. This barrier to learning can also
occur with children from disadvantaged homes at an even greater rate. Children were also better off if they didn't do Numeracy Project primary maths as well . They became so confused by all the different methods they were failing to succeed at all in maths.
Hopefully now that these fiendish methods no longer dominate in our schools parents and children will believe real learning occurs at school and it is worth while to attend a school.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.