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.
12 comments:
All Maori are part white ...how can we call them 100pc Maori?
Anon @ 4:15 There rellay is no Moari
When Polynesian arrived , they came with Chinese , South American...even Persian DNA. there was never a pure polynesian race and there certainly isnt a pure Moari race, no matter how far back you go!
In fact willie j did a DNA test on a recent TV show .
He was 23% Jewish , 28% Chinese and only 19% Polynesian.....thats what makes this whole charade a complete insanity!
“The real question is … why anyone committed to equality should find the principle threatening.”
Luxon apparently does. He doesn’t seem to realise that National was voted in because “we” wanted equality, not Māorification.
This time, “we” (huge numbers of ordinary kiwis) will be giving our party vote to ACT, because of their clear commitment to equality.
Fill your boots with as much Maori crap as you like, just don't try and force me, my family, or the general public to accept it.
That's exactly what Goebbels, in the German Third Reich did, asserting that people with Aryan blood were the superior race.
Luxon, can you not see the similarities?
Do you really want to be the PM who is bringing civil unrest ?
The so-called inequality gap in health and economics and other indicators between part-Maori and other NZ citizens has very little to do with race (which itself is a contestable way of looking at humans). I submit that the most important cause is CULTURE. Stone-age Maori tribal/warrior society was based on hunter gathering, slave labor, and very basic agriculture and was ONE way of adapting to and living in physically isolated NZ 1,700 years ago; certianly not the only way. The problem is that, as a CULTURE, it is completely unsuitable for life NOW in a modern industrialized economy with governance based on the idea of liberal Democracy and rule of Law. Maori who are attached to the idea of maintaning a stone-age culture in the modern world will always fall behind in many ways. Yes, liberal Democracy is not perfect, and yes a liberal form of Capitalism is not perfect, and yes on a "spiritual" level some Maori concepts (which BTW are NOT unique and will be found in many other stone age tribal cultures) may have value in the modern context, but this is no argument for aserting that all part-Maori problems are the fault of basic structures of modern society and culture here in New Zealand. If maori want to "get ahead" and "close the gaps" they need to take a good look at the nature of their own culture first. That's hard to do both on a personal level and as a group. Maori culture never had a tradition of self-criticism because it evolved in isolation from other cultures.
I'm more than happy to see part-Maori elite activists/hypocrites give away all the trappings of the evil European culture they hate so much. I'd love see them living in mud huts, wearing flax clothes, killing and stealing from each other the way they used to do. Would make great reality tv.
Majority, You are exactly correct .
Electorate Vote National ( where appropriate ) and Party Vote ACT or NZF.
Sanity will be restored and strengthened .
May please ask a couple questions with repsect to Act. Why are we still signed up to UNDIP when Act says their are about equaility?
Many questionable settlements, in part or whole, Act waved through that contain seperate rights, partnership and co-goverance?
Why will Act not remove the W Tribunal outright when its past roll has already been completed? Why wait?
What Act say as aposed to do, do not always match. Please enlighten me.
Signing up to UNDRIP was done in dishonesty. We didn't find out about it till after the fact and it went againest legal advice and NZs consitutional arrangements. If NZ had any standing it would not act in such a manner & that was under Acts watch.
Act has been around a long while, so please tell me why is the deck is still stacked in one direction when Act have been part of govts that could have acted?
Act say they want Maori seats gone so why are they not under Act, including the preset govt?
Some of the track record doesn't match the slogen.
Why debate Treaty principles when there are none. Shouldn't Race be removed from the equation and govt books outright as a free society?
1974-75 What a Maori is was reclasified. It is an invention. What peole identify with is a personal choice, not a matter for the state. DNA is mixed for all of us and what is the excuse to be in another 100yrs to justify our actions today?
Preferential treatment is long standing in NZ, Teachers, Medicial schools, tax breaks etc, Acts actions do not reflect what they say. Why?
In my day it did not matter the colour of your skin or who married who. Now NZ is all about Race but that to is a lie, it is about Iwi. Many with some Maori extraction are just as disadvantaged and discriminated against as any other Kiwi by NZs now obsetions over Race/Iwi. In the name of so called enlightenment NZ is distroying itself. It is not enlightened at all. Kind regards and I look forward to your answer to the questions?
@Anonymous 2:29pm, Thanks for raising these questions. I think several deserve a proper answer rather than simply dismissing them.
On UNDRIP, there is an important distinction. New Zealand's support for the Declaration was announced by Prime Minister John Key's National-led Government in April 2010, with Māori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples making the statement at the United Nations. The Government explicitly described UNDRIP as a non-binding declaration.
ACT was supporting the National Government through a confidence-and-supply agreement at the time, but it was not in coalition with National and its MPs were free to criticise government policy outside the confidence-and-supply commitments. More importantly, ACT's Rodney Hide spoke against the Government's decision in Parliament, and contemporary reporting recorded ACT as opposing the declaration.
So it is not accurate to say that ACT "signed New Zealand up to UNDRIP". The decision was made by the National-led Government, and ACT opposed that particular decision. ACT has continued to oppose UNDRIP and has subsequently called for New Zealand to renounce it.
****************
On the Waitangi Tribunal, however, there has been a significant change. ACT has now announced that it wants to complete eligible historical claims, remove the Tribunal's jurisdiction over contemporary government policy and conduct, and then automatically disestablish the Tribunal once the historical work is completed. That is considerably more specific than simply saying "abolish the Tribunal".
****************
On Treaty principles, ACT's position is not that the Treaty itself does not exist. Its argument is that vague and evolving "Treaty principles" should not be allowed to create open-ended constitutional obligations without Parliament clearly defining them. ACT's proposed principles include parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and equality before the law.
****************
As for Māori seats, ACT has consistently supported their removal, but ACT has only nine MPs in a 123-seat Parliament. It cannot simply abolish them by itself. Changes to electoral law require Parliament to pass legislation, and some electoral provisions have additional legal protections.
****************
The broader question you raise is probably the most important one: why does ACT's rhetoric sometimes appear ahead of what it actually achieves in government?
That is a fair question. ACT is a coalition partner, not a government with a free hand to implement its entire programme. Coalition government necessarily involves compromise.
But there is also a difference between judging ACT's stated principles and judging whether you think it has gone far enough in implementing them. On the evidence, ACT has continued to push the "one law for all" position, opposed UNDRIP, challenged race-based constitutional arrangements, supported removing Māori seats, and is now proposing to wind up the Waitangi Tribunal after its historical work is completed.
Whether that amounts to enough is a political judgement each voter has to make for themselves.
And I agree with one underlying point in your comment: the real issue is not Māori people, Māori ancestry or Māori culture. It is whether New Zealand should have different political rights, representation or state treatment based on ancestry or iwi affiliation. That is the substantive constitutional issue that deserves to be debated openly and on evidence rather than reduced to slogans.
We would have equality and equity if we all worked at the same level and made the same rational decisions.
If so many Maori can't be bothered, it's their problem, not mine.
Plenty of compassion for those with physical and intellectual disabilities, but those fit and lazy - tough.
For Majority @ 10:15 Am
ACT is the party that wants to freeze the minimum wage for three years. That would allow employers to “offer” take it or leave it wages. ACT was also the outfit that took down Pay Equity. Is that your idea of equality?
Whatever happened to the idea of a living wage? Would benefit rates be frozen also? Would other wage rates be frozen or move with the rate of inflation? How about Parliamentarians salaries?
Way back when (early 1980s) Muldoon set in place a wage and price freeze. When it was lifted inflation took off like a rocket. During the freeze some employers got around it by paying fictitious overtime.
Thank you for your responce Geoff. That raises an aditional point. NZF & Act, while different in flavour, actually have alinement in a number of areas. This however still doesn't get the job done. National seem to be blocking progress as the larger govt partner. How is Nationals position ever to be moved? Would NZF & Act get it done, ever?
Geoff, your piece is touted as not an attack on maori. Maybe that is the problem; perhaps maori need attacking rather than being pussy-footed about as if they are fragile toddlers? Reasoned, logical arguments don't always get the root of a problem and in this case it is activist maoris and the Waitangi Tribunal. Both need attacking, not appeasing. Unfortunately the media, through which such attacks could come, remain both intellectually bankrupt and emasculated.
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.