Noel O’Malley’s argument that ACT’s “One Law for All with One Future Together” policy is a disguised programme of assimilation rests on a remarkable inversion of the meaning of equality.
There is nothing inherently threatening about saying that every New Zealander should have the same rights, the same obligations and the same protection under the law. Indeed, that principle lies at the heart of a democratic society.
ACT’s policy explicitly says that its objective is for every New Zealander to stand equal before the law. It proposes constitutional recognition that Parliament makes the law, government is bound by it, and all New Zealanders are equal before it. It also proposes stronger protection for property rights and clearer limits on judicial interpretation. [1]
None of those objectives amounts to assimilation.
He begins from the premise that New Zealand’s institutions are fundamentally “race based”, created by colonisers for the benefit of colonisers, and that Māori inequality is presented as evidence of this continuing colonial structure.
That is a sweeping political interpretation, not an established fact.
New Zealand’s history includes conflict, contested land transactions, breaches of agreements, legislation that was later regarded as unjust, and other grievances involving both Māori and the Crown. Those matters should be examined on their merits. But acknowledging historical wrongs does not logically lead to the conclusion that modern New Zealand must maintain different political or legal arrangements according to ancestry.
Nor does Māori disadvantage automatically demonstrate that equal treatment under the law is responsible for it.
If two people are equal before the law, that does not mean they have identical incomes, educational outcomes, health outcomes or life circumstances. Equality before the law is a principle of citizenship, not a promise of identical outcomes.
Indeed, there is an important question that O’Malley never addresses: if racial disparities are evidence that supposedly race-neutral institutions are inherently discriminatory, how would we ever know when equality had been achieved?
Would the answer be to maintain different rules indefinitely?
That is precisely where the argument for “equity” can become an argument for permanent differentiation.
O’Malley also characterises ACT’s policy as an attempt to “minimise the status of Te Tiriti”. But ACT is not proposing to erase the Treaty from New Zealand history. Its policy is concerned with something considerably more specific: preventing vague Treaty references in legislation from creating undefined obligations which are subsequently interpreted by courts or officials. ACT says Parliament should be clear about what Treaty interests are engaged, who they apply to and what obligations they create. [1]
That is hardly an outrageous democratic proposition.
Parliament makes laws. Courts interpret them. If Parliament intends legislation to create particular rights or obligations, Parliament should say what they are.
O’Malley also invokes judicial interpretation and tikanga Māori as though questioning their expanding legal role is inherently anti-Māori. It is not. ACT’s stated position is that tikanga should not become a separate source of law across broad areas unless Parliament has expressly authorised it. [1]
Reasonable people can disagree about where that boundary should lie. But debating the constitutional role of judges is not an attack on Māori culture.
Nor is protecting property rights.
A farmer, homeowner, business owner or investor does not become less deserving of protection because they are Pākehā, Māori, Asian or any other ethnicity. ACT’s proposal would extend property-right protection to everyone. [2]
That is the point of universal rights: they do not ask where your ancestors came from before deciding how much protection you deserve.
O’Malley’s reference to the Treaty Principles Bill is also revealing. Yes, the bill attracted an extraordinary level of public participation. Parliament records more than 307,000 submissions. [3] But the fact that a proposal attracted enormous opposition does not establish that the underlying questions were illegitimate.
Indeed, the very existence of such intense public engagement demonstrates that New Zealanders are deeply divided over the constitutional direction of the country.
That debate cannot be resolved simply by declaring one side to be defending colonisation and the other to be seeking assimilation.
There is a much simpler proposition available.
Māori culture, language, history and identity can be acknowledged without creating different legal or political rights based on ancestry. Historical grievances can be recognised without making ancestry the basis of permanent political authority. Treaty history can be taught without every modern policy question being transformed into a Treaty obligation.
And Māori can participate fully in New Zealand society without being required to surrender their identity.
“One Law for All” does not mean one culture.
It means one citizenship.
That is not assimilation. It is equality.
And “One Future Together” should not be dismissed as empty rhetoric. Surely the ultimate objective of a successful democracy is precisely that: a country in which people of different ancestry can retain their identities while sharing the same rights, responsibilities and democratic institutions.
The real question is therefore not whether “One Law for All” sounds innocuous.
It is why anyone committed to equality should find the principle threatening.
References
[1] ACT New Zealand — “One Law for All, One Future Together” / full policy material.
https://www.act.org.nz/news/one-law-for-all-with-one-future-together
[2] ACT New Zealand — “Finish the Settlements, Wind Up the Waitangi Tribunal”.
https://www.act.org.nz/wind-up-the-waitangi-tribunal
[3] New Zealand Parliament — “Frequently asked questions: Principles of the Treaty of
https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/select-committee-news-archive/frequently-asked-questions-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-bill/
None of those objectives amounts to assimilation.
He begins from the premise that New Zealand’s institutions are fundamentally “race based”, created by colonisers for the benefit of colonisers, and that Māori inequality is presented as evidence of this continuing colonial structure.
That is a sweeping political interpretation, not an established fact.
New Zealand’s history includes conflict, contested land transactions, breaches of agreements, legislation that was later regarded as unjust, and other grievances involving both Māori and the Crown. Those matters should be examined on their merits. But acknowledging historical wrongs does not logically lead to the conclusion that modern New Zealand must maintain different political or legal arrangements according to ancestry.
Nor does Māori disadvantage automatically demonstrate that equal treatment under the law is responsible for it.
If two people are equal before the law, that does not mean they have identical incomes, educational outcomes, health outcomes or life circumstances. Equality before the law is a principle of citizenship, not a promise of identical outcomes.
Indeed, there is an important question that O’Malley never addresses: if racial disparities are evidence that supposedly race-neutral institutions are inherently discriminatory, how would we ever know when equality had been achieved?
Would the answer be to maintain different rules indefinitely?
That is precisely where the argument for “equity” can become an argument for permanent differentiation.
O’Malley also characterises ACT’s policy as an attempt to “minimise the status of Te Tiriti”. But ACT is not proposing to erase the Treaty from New Zealand history. Its policy is concerned with something considerably more specific: preventing vague Treaty references in legislation from creating undefined obligations which are subsequently interpreted by courts or officials. ACT says Parliament should be clear about what Treaty interests are engaged, who they apply to and what obligations they create. [1]
That is hardly an outrageous democratic proposition.
Parliament makes laws. Courts interpret them. If Parliament intends legislation to create particular rights or obligations, Parliament should say what they are.
O’Malley also invokes judicial interpretation and tikanga Māori as though questioning their expanding legal role is inherently anti-Māori. It is not. ACT’s stated position is that tikanga should not become a separate source of law across broad areas unless Parliament has expressly authorised it. [1]
Reasonable people can disagree about where that boundary should lie. But debating the constitutional role of judges is not an attack on Māori culture.
Nor is protecting property rights.
A farmer, homeowner, business owner or investor does not become less deserving of protection because they are Pākehā, Māori, Asian or any other ethnicity. ACT’s proposal would extend property-right protection to everyone. [2]
That is the point of universal rights: they do not ask where your ancestors came from before deciding how much protection you deserve.
O’Malley’s reference to the Treaty Principles Bill is also revealing. Yes, the bill attracted an extraordinary level of public participation. Parliament records more than 307,000 submissions. [3] But the fact that a proposal attracted enormous opposition does not establish that the underlying questions were illegitimate.
Indeed, the very existence of such intense public engagement demonstrates that New Zealanders are deeply divided over the constitutional direction of the country.
That debate cannot be resolved simply by declaring one side to be defending colonisation and the other to be seeking assimilation.
There is a much simpler proposition available.
Māori culture, language, history and identity can be acknowledged without creating different legal or political rights based on ancestry. Historical grievances can be recognised without making ancestry the basis of permanent political authority. Treaty history can be taught without every modern policy question being transformed into a Treaty obligation.
And Māori can participate fully in New Zealand society without being required to surrender their identity.
“One Law for All” does not mean one culture.
It means one citizenship.
That is not assimilation. It is equality.
And “One Future Together” should not be dismissed as empty rhetoric. Surely the ultimate objective of a successful democracy is precisely that: a country in which people of different ancestry can retain their identities while sharing the same rights, responsibilities and democratic institutions.
The real question is therefore not whether “One Law for All” sounds innocuous.
It is why anyone committed to equality should find the principle threatening.
References
[1] ACT New Zealand — “One Law for All, One Future Together” / full policy material.
https://www.act.org.nz/news/one-law-for-all-with-one-future-together
[2] ACT New Zealand — “Finish the Settlements, Wind Up the Waitangi Tribunal”.
https://www.act.org.nz/wind-up-the-waitangi-tribunal
[3] New Zealand Parliament — “Frequently asked questions: Principles of the Treaty of
https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/select-committee-news-archive/frequently-asked-questions-principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-bill/
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
No comments:
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.