A.E. Thompson: Racist Control of New Zealand Psychologists

I draw your attention to public documents from the New Zealand Psychological Society, the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists and the New Zealand Psychologists Board.

The New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP) is currently pushing workshops called 'Te Tiriti O Waitangi Informed Psychology in Aotearoa' (see https://nzps.gecco.co.nz/event-manager/ViewEvent/220).

The description of these 2-day workshops highlight their claim that Te Tiriti is important to psychology practice and research, refer to the 'spirit' of Te Tiriti, rely on an assertion that the English versus the Maori versions of Te Tiriti were substantially different (apparently disregarding Sir Apirana Ngata's 1922 translation in order to contrive preferred interpretations), and claim that the workshop will guide participants to develop 'personalised Te Tiriti analyses and implementation' plans. That analysis may well derive from 'Critical Tiriti Analysis' (I kid you not: see https://www.cmc.org.nz/media/dpfhtlej/critical-tirit-analysis-a-prospective-policy-making-tool-from-aotearoa-new-zealand-pdf.pdf).

The Critical Tiriti Analysis paper claims that Article One of Te Tiriti referred to the Crown establishing government over only its non-Maori settlers!

The New Zealand Psychological Society (NZPsS) has a rule requiring the demonstration of commitment to the 'four articles' of Te Tiriti (see https://www.psychology.org.nz/about/who-we-are/bicultural-commitment).

The web page refers to upholding the 'sacred covenant' of the 1835 Maori Declaration of Independence as well as Te Tiriti. It claims that the Declaration and Te Tiriti 'are the foundations by which we become fully competent, aware and safe practitioners'.

Ten psychologists from various specialties are presented giving short talks about their Tiriti-informed perspectives. Notably, not one mentions any wording of the document. They also mention nothing and probably know nothing about the content of speeches by rangatira during debates for and against signing, speeches that clearly showed the rangitira knew Te Tiriti would entail the Crown establishing paramount government over Maori and everyone else in Nu Tireni while allowing local chieftainship as much as possible.

The NZPsS web page goes on to mention workshops about 'upholding Te Tiriti', including the Te Tiriti-Informed Psychology in Aotearoa workshops that the NZPsS appears to have commissioned.

Under the heading 'Guidelines for Authors', NZPsS mentions that Rule 3 of the Psychologists Code of Ethics led the NZPsS to encourage practices that shall have due regard for the 'spirit and intent' of Te Tiriti.

Accordingly, guidelines including a list of questions similar to Critical Tiriti Analysis were provided for psychologist authors contributing to a Practice Handbook covering all psychologist activities. One question requires authors to make 'appropriate alternative assumptions' about spirituality and other beliefs, apparently to ensure they are not European beliefs. Two of the other questions are:

- What is missing from your chapter which might be important for a) Māori; and b) people from other non-culture defining groups?

- How can the needs and aspirations of a) Māori; and b) other non-cultural defining groups be better addressed in relation to your topic?

Don't the NZPsS people realise that Maori aspirations cover a wide scope including usurping New Zealand's government and disregarding Pakeha laws? Why would psychologists support those or other possible future, more radical aspirations? How are aspirations to be selected as deserving support?

Rule 3 involves general comments about recognition of, sensitivity to, caring and fairness towards groups with different cultural, ethnic, religious and other identity characteristics. Related to that, the NZPsS claims:

'In New Zealand, the basis for respect between the indigenous people (tangata whenua – those who are Māori) and others (those who are not Māori) is set out in the Treaty of Waitangi'; and

'Treaty of Waitangi provides a framework for responsible caring between two peoples, tangata whenua (those who are Māori) and those who are not Māori'; and

'In New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi provides a framework for integrity in relationships between the two peoples, tangata whenua (those who are Māori) and those who are not Māori'; and

'In New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi is a foundation document of social justice.'

The NZ Psychologists Board's Code of Ethics for psychologists includes the following:

'Psychologists practising in New Zealand recognise that the Treaty of Waitangi sets out the basis of respect between Māori and non-Māori in this country' and

'1.3.1. Psychologists, individually and collectively, seek to be informed about the meaning and implications of the Treaty of Waitangi for their work. This includes an understanding of the principles of protection, participation and partnership with Māori'; and

'Research ethics proposals should include statements of responsiveness to the Treaty principles of partnership, participation and protection and be compatible with Māori development.'

According to this amused bystander, there are only three articles in Te Tiriti. A verbal assurance provided to the Rangatira present at one of the places of signing does not constitute a fourth article. It's difficult to see how psychologists or any groups other than government under the Crown could possibly 'show commitment to' the three articles or what that would achieve. Ironically, acknowledging accurate meaning of the articles (and the signing Rangatira's understanding of them) would perhaps show such commitment but it seems the leaders of New Zealand psychology do not want to do that.

The New Zealand Psychologists Board requires psychologists to seek to be informed about the meaning of Te Tiriti, but specifies that involves understanding claimed principles that contradict both the wording of the document and speeches at the time of signing and in subsequent years.

'Understanding' undoubtedly means 'accepting without question' these recently-invented, fake principles that their inventors have described as not set in stone but able to change according to evolving societal needs (i.e. the preferences of some Maori). Being informed will likely be the opposite of what the Psychologists Board would tolerate.

Further, for Te Tiriti to 'inform' psychology practice would require considerable invention and mental gymnastics. There is nothing in Te Tiriti that 'sets out the basis' for respect between Maori and non-Maori, or that provides any 'framework' for responsible caring or integrity in relationships, or that provided any foundation for social justice beyond that gained by being subjects of the British Crown. I challenge anyone to show the wording in Te Tiriti for any of those alleged provisions.

Nothing is mentioned in Te Tiriti or the Declaration of Independence that could possibly be seen as a foundation by which psychologists might become competent. Perhaps the principles invented by the Waitangi Tribunal or the 'spirit' of Te Tiriti derived from those principles are seen to provide such magical powers.

Regardless, so much on the NZPsS web page is made up nonsense. The NZCCP goes along with that nonsense. Even the legislatively established Psychologists Board appears to believe that Sir Robin Cooke's 'akin to a partnership' comment created a Tiriti principle of political partnership between races. It's amazing that such intelligent people can allow themselves to amend reality to support an ideology.

The short talks by the ten psychologists who were subjected to 'Tiriti-informed psychology' education resemble converts providing religious testimony, or perhaps it's Stockholm Syndrome. While much of what they say describes sensible approaches to psychology practice in multicultural contexts, none of it demonstrated any way in which Te Tiriti might 'inform' psychology.

Psychologists sensible enough to resist this ideological capture are likely unwilling to pay the inevitable career-wrecking price of disagreeing openly, and that is how control is achieved. At least, the New Zealand Psychological Society deserves to be confronted and challenged regarding its outlandish claims. That would be most effective if coming from an established organisation rather than one or a few individuals. Who will help?

A.E. Thompson is a working, tax-paying New Zealander who speaks up about threats to our hard-fought rights, liberties, egalitarian values, rational thinking and fair treatment by the state.