When a military institution whose sole purpose is the defence of a modern democratic nation begins flirting with the inclusion of mythological cosmologies and spiritual frameworks as part of its internal doctrine, sensible people are naturally going to ask a very simple question: what on earth is going on? The reported pause placed on the initiative by Defence Minister Judith Collins only underscores the fact that something had clearly gone too far.
Let’s be perfectly blunt about the deeper issue.
New Zealand is not a bicultural country. It hasn’t been for a very long time. It is a multicultural society made up of people from Europe, Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, Africa, and dozens of other backgrounds. The idea that the entire legal and institutional framework of the nation should be interpreted through a rigid “bicultural” lens is not a neutral description of reality—it is an ideological claim.
And it is a claim that is increasingly being used as a vehicle to insert particular spiritual or metaphysical worldviews into public institutions.
The manoeuvre is clever, in a bureaucratic sort of way. Instead of openly presenting these concepts as belonging to a specific spiritual tradition—which would immediately trigger legitimate questions about the secular nature of state institutions—they are wrapped in softer language: frameworks, values, perspectives, knowledge systems. The terminology sounds harmless enough. But the underlying content often carries unmistakably spiritual assumptions.
That is precisely how such ideas begin appearing in places where they have absolutely no business being—government departments, state schools, and now, apparently, even military doctrine.
At some point the country has to decide whether its institutions are secular civic bodies or vehicles for the quiet advancement of particular cosmological beliefs. They cannot honestly be both.
This is why the word “bicultural” in legislation is becoming increasingly problematic. It functions less as a descriptive term and more as a policy lever—one that steadily expands the reach of a specific worldview throughout the machinery of the state.
If New Zealand wishes to remain a genuinely pluralistic democracy, the solution is straightforward: the law should reflect what the country actually is—a multicultural society governed by secular institutions.
Continuing to pretend otherwise merely invites more episodes like the current Army controversy. And frankly, the public is starting to notice.
John Robertson is a patriotic New Zealander who frequently posts on Facebook.
New Zealand is not a bicultural country. It hasn’t been for a very long time. It is a multicultural society made up of people from Europe, Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, Africa, and dozens of other backgrounds. The idea that the entire legal and institutional framework of the nation should be interpreted through a rigid “bicultural” lens is not a neutral description of reality—it is an ideological claim.
And it is a claim that is increasingly being used as a vehicle to insert particular spiritual or metaphysical worldviews into public institutions.
The manoeuvre is clever, in a bureaucratic sort of way. Instead of openly presenting these concepts as belonging to a specific spiritual tradition—which would immediately trigger legitimate questions about the secular nature of state institutions—they are wrapped in softer language: frameworks, values, perspectives, knowledge systems. The terminology sounds harmless enough. But the underlying content often carries unmistakably spiritual assumptions.
That is precisely how such ideas begin appearing in places where they have absolutely no business being—government departments, state schools, and now, apparently, even military doctrine.
At some point the country has to decide whether its institutions are secular civic bodies or vehicles for the quiet advancement of particular cosmological beliefs. They cannot honestly be both.
This is why the word “bicultural” in legislation is becoming increasingly problematic. It functions less as a descriptive term and more as a policy lever—one that steadily expands the reach of a specific worldview throughout the machinery of the state.
If New Zealand wishes to remain a genuinely pluralistic democracy, the solution is straightforward: the law should reflect what the country actually is—a multicultural society governed by secular institutions.
Continuing to pretend otherwise merely invites more episodes like the current Army controversy. And frankly, the public is starting to notice.
John Robertson is a patriotic New Zealander who frequently posts on Facebook.
14 comments:
This is applicable to the Nursing and Medical Councils......but let us not forget organisations like St. John, the Salvation Army et al. They too have become something they should never have needed to become. The question nobody seems to ask of any of these organisations is, who is driving the ideology and why?
"Bicultural" is simply double speak intended to mean the imposition of a mono-culture, one that I hope most of us would want to reject.
Watching with interest the precision, co-ordination and readiness of the personal on the decks of the USS Abraham Lincoln, one cannot conceive how anybody would think its a good idea to incorporate a haka or a karakia in the middle of a war. Even a female commander might be a tad out of place(sorry ladies).
New Zealand is, in fact, a 'bicultural' country. Maori and everybody else.
Anna Mouse. You can add the Pharmacy Council to that list !
To Anna Mouse. The Venerable Order of St John, and the 'knee bend to Maoridom' occurred when there was a "changing of The Guard" at CEO level. The new dude, after consulting, decided to appoint a person from the realm of Maoridom to become the "Advisor on matters Maori" ( a paid position at St John HQ, Auckland), that could be incorporated into the Charitable Aims of St John, particularly at Ambulance Operations Level, due to staff of that function had a greater 'face to face' with Maori.
This interface led to the redesigning of the exterior logos on all ambulance across NZ.
I see now, that on the reverse of the Uniform jacket there has been an addition of Te Reo.
And, yes the incorporation of Maori greetings, etc at the beginning of any/all St John meetings has become standard practice.
One should ask - "What money flowed from St John to Maori as Koha for services rendered"?
The concept of bi-cultural was dear to Helen Clark. When running for the UN SG post, she described NZ as a " bi-cultural country in the Oceania region of the Pacific".
Can anyone create a comprehensive list of all the professional organizations that have forced a Maori requirement into their charters ?
I really would like to see such a list presented to Luxon for his rebuttal that Maorication has continued and increased under his control of NZ.
In reference to much of the above it is important to distinguish between multicultural and multiracial. The latter is less fraught as long as a unified culture predominates. NZ is definitely multi-racial. Multiculturalism just makes society a mess. Similarly, biculturalism as NZ is accused of possessing, whether the case or not, is terribly divisive and precisely what is driving discord in this country.
Anon @ 12:33PM: Brilliant idea!
To Anon 12.33pm: The NZ Royal Society produced a report ( with a section on the Treaty) on compliance (e.g. codes of conduct) for small organizations to update Labour's 2022 Incorporated Societies Act .This update must be done by 2026.
https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/who-we-are/our-people/our-members/our-member-organisations/compliance-requirements-for-small-organisations/compliance-requirements-for-small-organisations#tod
MBIE has proposed similar guidelines.
This has influenced action by professional groups as part of the NGO sector. So far, organizations with Treaty obligations cover: teaching, the health sector ( medicine, pharmacy, nursing) , law, architecture and real estate. Engineering has been mentioned.
Anon @12.33pm - I believe Geoff Parker has today created a comprehensive list of all the professional organizations that have forced a Maori requirement into their charters, on BreakingViews, the number of organisations is mind-blowing
Allen Heath: "...it is important to distinguish between multicultural and multiracial. The latter is less fraught as long as a unified culture predominates. NZ is definitely multi-racial. Multiculturalism just makes society a mess."
I agree with you, and I've come round to this way of thinking. In truth, NZ has never been bicultural. From before the signing of the Treaty, there have been people here from all over the world. The ancestry of both Europeans and Maori can attest to that.
Long years ago, I believed in the chimera of biculturalism. As the NZ population has grown and its ethnic provenance has changed, I've come to see it for the fantasy that it is.
NZ now has a multiplicity of cultures and races: even more so than at the signing of the Treaty. Our best hope for the future is to continue on the current path: a secular, representative democracy. Attempting to privilege Maori culture over everyone else's, is doomed to failure. But it will engender much hostility and division before that.
Allen Heath is surely right. A multi-cultural society is a guaranteed recipe for perpetual conflict. It makes no more sense than having two Commanders with identical roles running your ship of state. But the morons and ideologues pushing the multicultural role really don’t care about the problems. Indeed they quite like that idea. Viva the revolution and all that.
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.