The Government is right to focus on economic growth.
New Zealand desperately needs higher productivity, stronger businesses, more investment, and better use of our land. Ministers have recognised this reality by introducing policies designed to boost rural productivity, encourage development, and support economic expansion across the wider economy.
Those are worthwhile objectives.
What is harder to understand is why some economic development programmes remain restricted by ancestry.
Recent announcements have included funding targeted specifically at Māori-owned businesses and initiatives designed to unlock the economic potential of Māori land. Supporters argue that these measures help overcome unique barriers and create opportunities that might otherwise remain unrealised.
Yet the Government's own broader economic policies raise an obvious question.
If productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship and land development are good for New Zealand, why should eligibility for some assistance depend on ethnicity rather than merit?
Consider two business owners with equally promising proposals. Both want to expand. Both will create jobs. Both will contribute to economic growth. Both may require financial assistance to take the next step.
Most New Zealanders would assume that government support should go to the proposal most likely to succeed and deliver value for taxpayers.
That is how merit-based systems work.
The relevant questions are straightforward. Is the business viable? Will it create jobs? Will it increase productivity? Will it generate economic returns?
Ancestry answers none of those questions.
The Government appears to understand this principle in other areas. Programmes aimed at increasing rural productivity, improving land use and encouraging investment are generally available because they are expected to benefit the country as a whole. Eligibility is based on the activity being undertaken, not the ethnicity of the applicant.
That approach makes sense.
If a farmer develops a more productive operation, New Zealand benefits.
If a business expands exports, New Zealand benefits.
If land is put to more productive use, New Zealand benefits.
The economic outcome matters far more than the ancestry of the person delivering it.
Supporters of race-based funding often argue that some groups face particular challenges. That may be true. But the solution should be to address the challenge itself, not use ethnicity as a proxy.
If access to finance is the problem, target businesses that cannot obtain finance.
If regional isolation creates obstacles, assist businesses operating in remote areas.
If start-ups require support, make that support available to start-ups.
Need can be measured. Merit can be assessed. Economic benefit can be evaluated.
Ancestry cannot tell us which business idea is strongest, which investment will produce the greatest return, or which entrepreneur will create the most jobs.
The danger of ethnicity-based funding is not merely financial. It also changes the relationship between citizens and the state.
In a liberal democracy, government is expected to treat citizens equally. Different people may receive different levels of assistance because their circumstances differ, but the criteria should be objective and relevant.
Race is neither.
The more funding, grants and opportunities become tied to ancestry, the more New Zealand risks drifting away from equal citizenship and towards a system of competing entitlements.
That is not a recipe for national unity.
The irony is that the Government's wider economic agenda already points toward a better solution. Ministers are promoting productivity, innovation, investment and development because these things benefit everyone.
The same principle should apply to economic assistance.
When governments fund economic development, they should ask one simple question:
Is this the best investment?
The moment the answer depends not on the quality of the proposal but on the ancestry of the applicant, merit has given way to preference.
New Zealand's future prosperity will be built by people who work hard, take risks, create businesses, employ others and invest in their communities.
Those qualities are not defined by race. - Government support shouldn't be either.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
What is harder to understand is why some economic development programmes remain restricted by ancestry.
Recent announcements have included funding targeted specifically at Māori-owned businesses and initiatives designed to unlock the economic potential of Māori land. Supporters argue that these measures help overcome unique barriers and create opportunities that might otherwise remain unrealised.
Yet the Government's own broader economic policies raise an obvious question.
If productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship and land development are good for New Zealand, why should eligibility for some assistance depend on ethnicity rather than merit?
Consider two business owners with equally promising proposals. Both want to expand. Both will create jobs. Both will contribute to economic growth. Both may require financial assistance to take the next step.
Most New Zealanders would assume that government support should go to the proposal most likely to succeed and deliver value for taxpayers.
That is how merit-based systems work.
The relevant questions are straightforward. Is the business viable? Will it create jobs? Will it increase productivity? Will it generate economic returns?
Ancestry answers none of those questions.
The Government appears to understand this principle in other areas. Programmes aimed at increasing rural productivity, improving land use and encouraging investment are generally available because they are expected to benefit the country as a whole. Eligibility is based on the activity being undertaken, not the ethnicity of the applicant.
That approach makes sense.
If a farmer develops a more productive operation, New Zealand benefits.
If a business expands exports, New Zealand benefits.
If land is put to more productive use, New Zealand benefits.
The economic outcome matters far more than the ancestry of the person delivering it.
Supporters of race-based funding often argue that some groups face particular challenges. That may be true. But the solution should be to address the challenge itself, not use ethnicity as a proxy.
If access to finance is the problem, target businesses that cannot obtain finance.
If regional isolation creates obstacles, assist businesses operating in remote areas.
If start-ups require support, make that support available to start-ups.
Need can be measured. Merit can be assessed. Economic benefit can be evaluated.
Ancestry cannot tell us which business idea is strongest, which investment will produce the greatest return, or which entrepreneur will create the most jobs.
The danger of ethnicity-based funding is not merely financial. It also changes the relationship between citizens and the state.
In a liberal democracy, government is expected to treat citizens equally. Different people may receive different levels of assistance because their circumstances differ, but the criteria should be objective and relevant.
Race is neither.
The more funding, grants and opportunities become tied to ancestry, the more New Zealand risks drifting away from equal citizenship and towards a system of competing entitlements.
That is not a recipe for national unity.
The irony is that the Government's wider economic agenda already points toward a better solution. Ministers are promoting productivity, innovation, investment and development because these things benefit everyone.
The same principle should apply to economic assistance.
When governments fund economic development, they should ask one simple question:
Is this the best investment?
The moment the answer depends not on the quality of the proposal but on the ancestry of the applicant, merit has given way to preference.
New Zealand's future prosperity will be built by people who work hard, take risks, create businesses, employ others and invest in their communities.
Those qualities are not defined by race. - Government support shouldn't be either.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
9 comments:
Geoff, you speak for many NZers Im sure, the vast majority
I just do not understand why the current Govt are neglecting their DUTY
The Government neglecting their duty is intentional.
Any current government can depend on total apathy - except from Maori (massive protet).
What an absolute crock from start to finish - that is when referencing the Government's announcement that Geoff's column relates to - see the "here" link in the weekly update of 'Maori affairs' appearing in the column above it.
The 'release' refers to "...whenua Maori landowners..." - so now we appear to have 'land Maori' landowners as a cohort - presumably as opposed to perhaps 'sky Maori' - those that have aviation interests, or perhaps 'foreshore and seabed Maori' or those 'other' interests in other realms? What an utter nonsense, for we are all 'land' humans, or is this just another underhand push to connect Maori with the land, thereby attempting to further assert their indigeneity as 'tangata whenua', when 'Te Tiriti' correctly identifies them as 'tangata maori' and we all know they arrived here in a waka.
And quite aside from the issues Geoff rightly identifies with this latest inappropriate race-favouring policy, the official release, dated 10 June 2026, is published (arguably, as a unintentional 'coup de grace') with "New Zealand Government" as a footnote to the much bolder typeface Te Kawanatanga o Aotearoa positioned above it. So aside from creating new race-based policy, here they are, nearly a whole term in Government later, and they still can't even fix the nameplate above their own door.
So, "back on track" - what hope is there, and National still seek our votes? What a joke - except it's far from it.
While I dont condone the current events in Belfast, you do have to wonder....
"What will it take to get the NZ govt to listen to voters?"
Well said Peter; and any way, if all part-maori were productive, a doubtful proposition, then just 17% of the population is going to be the saviour of NZ GDP. Give me a break!
Just how many billions have already been invested in Maori and Maori specific projects ?
Any return in either social or economic benefits to the rest of us who unwittingly supplied the funds ?
No is the quick answer.
The tribes who manipulated the most out of us now have billions in investments - why are they not investing in their own people ?
The quick answer is that it is a waste and never likely to be returned.
To Anon 8.54: Yes - intentional neglect on the PM's orders. If Nat is punished in November, Luxon could prefer a Coalition with Labour to hold power and maintain commitment to Maori privilege. People may only wake up when their taxes rise to pay for this.
For a man who is the Prime Minister, Mr Luxon shows an unbelievable political naivety. He still thinks he is the big white saviour to the poor oppressed natives. Of course, Maori encourage him, while laughing behind his back. Will he never wake up to the fact he is being played like a fiddle
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.