No one disputes that many marae opened their doors during emergencies, offering shelter, food, and care — just as churches, schools, clubs, and private citizens routinely do in times of crisis. Decency in an emergency is not unique to any culture, nor does it confer constitutional status.
Yet Gurunathan uses emergency generosity as a rhetorical shield, implying that criticism of marae’s expanding political role is somehow illegitimate, even morally suspect. That is a category error. Community service does not entitle an institution to public power, taxpayer privilege, or exemption from scrutiny.
Over the past decade, very substantial sums — running into the hundreds of millions of dollars — have been channelled into marae through direct grants, infrastructure upgrades, Covid response funding, resilience programmes, and now emergency funds. This is not charity; it is sustained public investment.
With that level of funding comes a reasonable expectation of neutrality, accountability, and inclusiveness.
There are approximately 780 marae across New Zealand, forming a nationwide, publicly supported network that often functions as staging posts for Maori political mobilisation. Protest marches directed at the Government — and by extension the wider New Zealand public — are able to move from marae to marae, drawing on accommodation, food, transport coordination, media access and institutional legitimacy along the way. No comparable infrastructure exists for non-Māori New Zealanders. This creates an uneven political playing field, where one group enjoys a permanent, state-assisted protest network while others must rely on ad hoc, private arrangements. That imbalance matters when marae are presented as neutral civic partners rather than what they increasingly are: organised hubs of political activism in practice.
Marae are not neutral civic spaces. They are, by design, tribal institutions, grounded in whakapapa, hierarchy, and identity politics. Access, authority, and voice on a marae are not equal in the liberal-democratic sense; they are determined by ancestry, status, and tikanga. That is their right as private cultural institutions — but it makes them ill-suited as default venues for public governance.
Nor is it controversial to observe that many marae function as centres of anti-colonisation ideology and often pro-separatist political education, particularly for young Māori. Visitors — Māori and non-Māori alike — are often presented with a political narrative that portrays New Zealand as unjust at its foundation, permanently constrained by the Treaty, and morally divided along ethnic lines. Marae are entitled to promote such views. What does not follow is any automatic right to public endorsement or taxpayer funding without debate.
Gurunathan presents marae as embodiments of the “greater good” in contrast to Western individualism. But New Zealand is not a tribal society; it is a liberal democracy. Our public institutions exist to serve individuals equally under the law, not to “weld” citizens into inherited collective identities. When the state privileges one cultural framework over others, it undermines social cohesion rather than strengthening it.
The coalition government’s reluctance to further entrench race-based governance is not an “attack on Māori values,” as Gurunathan claims. It is a reassertion of democratic norms: equal citizenship, neutral institutions, and public decision-making free from ethnic capture. Praising marae for voluntary emergency assistance does not oblige the state to formalise them as governance partners, nor to seat them permanently “at the table.”
Emergency management requires competence, coordination, and accountability — not ancestry or cultural symbolism. If marae can meet those standards as service providers, they should be contracted like any other organisation, on equal terms, without political mystique or immunity from criticism.
New Zealanders can be grateful for help offered in a crisis while still asking hard questions about where public money goes, who holds power, and whether tribal institutions should shape national governance. Those questions are not racist, divisive, or harmful. They are the essence of democratic responsibility.
Charity deserves thanks. Power demands scrutiny.
Geoff Parker is a long-standing advocate for truth, equal rights, and equality before the law.
Over the past decade, very substantial sums — running into the hundreds of millions of dollars — have been channelled into marae through direct grants, infrastructure upgrades, Covid response funding, resilience programmes, and now emergency funds. This is not charity; it is sustained public investment.
With that level of funding comes a reasonable expectation of neutrality, accountability, and inclusiveness.
There are approximately 780 marae across New Zealand, forming a nationwide, publicly supported network that often functions as staging posts for Maori political mobilisation. Protest marches directed at the Government — and by extension the wider New Zealand public — are able to move from marae to marae, drawing on accommodation, food, transport coordination, media access and institutional legitimacy along the way. No comparable infrastructure exists for non-Māori New Zealanders. This creates an uneven political playing field, where one group enjoys a permanent, state-assisted protest network while others must rely on ad hoc, private arrangements. That imbalance matters when marae are presented as neutral civic partners rather than what they increasingly are: organised hubs of political activism in practice.
Marae are not neutral civic spaces. They are, by design, tribal institutions, grounded in whakapapa, hierarchy, and identity politics. Access, authority, and voice on a marae are not equal in the liberal-democratic sense; they are determined by ancestry, status, and tikanga. That is their right as private cultural institutions — but it makes them ill-suited as default venues for public governance.
Nor is it controversial to observe that many marae function as centres of anti-colonisation ideology and often pro-separatist political education, particularly for young Māori. Visitors — Māori and non-Māori alike — are often presented with a political narrative that portrays New Zealand as unjust at its foundation, permanently constrained by the Treaty, and morally divided along ethnic lines. Marae are entitled to promote such views. What does not follow is any automatic right to public endorsement or taxpayer funding without debate.
Gurunathan presents marae as embodiments of the “greater good” in contrast to Western individualism. But New Zealand is not a tribal society; it is a liberal democracy. Our public institutions exist to serve individuals equally under the law, not to “weld” citizens into inherited collective identities. When the state privileges one cultural framework over others, it undermines social cohesion rather than strengthening it.
The coalition government’s reluctance to further entrench race-based governance is not an “attack on Māori values,” as Gurunathan claims. It is a reassertion of democratic norms: equal citizenship, neutral institutions, and public decision-making free from ethnic capture. Praising marae for voluntary emergency assistance does not oblige the state to formalise them as governance partners, nor to seat them permanently “at the table.”
Emergency management requires competence, coordination, and accountability — not ancestry or cultural symbolism. If marae can meet those standards as service providers, they should be contracted like any other organisation, on equal terms, without political mystique or immunity from criticism.
New Zealanders can be grateful for help offered in a crisis while still asking hard questions about where public money goes, who holds power, and whether tribal institutions should shape national governance. Those questions are not racist, divisive, or harmful. They are the essence of democratic responsibility.
Charity deserves thanks. Power demands scrutiny.
Geoff Parker is a long-standing advocate for truth, equal rights, and equality before the law.
6 comments:
If a marriage gets a few million for helping out flood victims why do the sallies and churches and other groups have to go begging to the public for delivering the exact same service?
Which justifies referring to marae as Insurgency Coordination Centres. MSM editorials never venture into such obvious territory as Geoff explores.
I have to disagree when the author the stated that “The coalition government’s reluctance to further entrench race-based governance” Apart from some window dressing they have not fulfilled their mandate. Hence certain parties of the coalition will not be getting my vote.
Guranathan has an abrasive personality with a personal chip on his shoulder, because of his Indian heritage, and believing he ,too, is a victim of racism. This he thinks makes him entitled to promote Maori issues but usually from the Marxist viewpoint-victimisation. He promotes the idea of a Maori rennaissance because Maori have all sorts of knowledge, customs and heritage that are superior to European ones.
Wearing rose -tinted spectacles he obviously thinks generosity and hospitality are special Maori attributes that need rewarding and the rest of us don't have .
Reading this article and knowing what l do about efforts to provide plans for a necessary transition from the environmentally unstable East Coast to one that maintains jobs for those who chose to stay, it is not surprising that the Government is struggling to find a formula that is equitable for all.
As one who was instrumental in providing a workable model for transition to the Gisborne District Council last year, l am not surprised but disappointed that the Government has turned down an offer to participate in an alternative plan that obviously involves a greater degree of Iwi control during and after the transition process.
Both ideas have merit and either one would provide the region with an opportunity to plan for a future that could make the Tairawhiti one of the most prosperous regions in the country.- not bad from the current position where we are in danger of becoming a backward timber town - “ Tokoroa by the sea” ( with no disrespect to the good people of Tokoroa).
However the reason for this contribution to the discussion is not to bad mouth the current unsustainable regional practices and those involved in making it happen but more about trying to find answers to why both plans have been rejected.
My suspicion is because my plan was one that doesn’t provide Iwi with the control over future developments they currently enjoy and the second does the opposite by ensuring tribal authorities would dominate proceedings for ever.
The Government, for its part, appears for the time being at least, unwilling to fund options that include the sovereignty issues that have plagued this country for decades although, as Geoff points out, their efforts to be all things to all people are pretty one sided as they stand.
Shame on them but in the meantime, our future is at stake and sooner or later the people of this country will have to collectively decide who runs the place and are we prepared to stand up to those who want to divide and rule.
I suppose the first step in solving the problem, which is a nationwide one, needs to occur during discussions taking place this week at Waitangi.
Unfortunately, for that to happen, the political parties all need to start talking TO one another rather than PAST each other as has been the case for far too long.
Because if they don’t, nothing constructive will happen and we will slowly drift or rapidly descend into a state of anarchy.
Maybe that is what a significant minority of self entitled racist agitators want more than anything.
Wake up New Zealand - we are in danger of losing our birthright without a shot being fired.
Time to get real.
I fully agree with anonymous @4.12. It is less polemical than my previous 2 cents' worth which must have been deemed too contentious by the moderator because it did not see the light of day. I still insist that Gurunathan is a nasty piece of work, by whatever measure and if you find this offensive moderator I don't apologise.
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.