Geoff Parker: The Trojan Horse - Six Words Changing New Zealand

Six fashionable words — and what lies behind them

There are six Māori words appearing more and more in New Zealand government, councils, public agencies, law and political debate.

Whanaungatanga — relationships and connection.

Manaakitanga — caring for and respecting others.

Kaitiakitanga — guardianship of the environment.

Kotahitanga — unity and collective action.

Tikanga — Māori customs, practices and principles - the right way to do things.

And Wairuatanga — spirituality and connection to the spiritual world.

They have become fashionable words in modern New Zealand politics.

And at first glance, what could possibly be wrong with them?

Nothing, it might seem.

And that is precisely the point.

These words sound positive, inclusive and difficult to disagree with.

But perhaps we should look beyond the words themselves and ask: What are they being used to do?

Because these are no longer simply words used within Māori culture.

They are increasingly appearing in government policy, public institutions and New Zealand law.

Treasury, for example, has developed He Ara Waiora, a framework based on Māori perspectives of wellbeing. Treasury says it is intended to help embed Te Ao Māori perspectives in its policy advice.

The framework includes kotahitanga, tikanga, whanaungatanga, manaakitanga and tiakitanga as principles for government processes and behaviour.

So this isn't just about words.

These ideas are becoming part of the way government thinks and operates.

Take whanaungatanga.

Building relationships and connections sounds entirely reasonable.

But Treasury's framework says policymakers should consider how roles and responsibilities might be distributed across iwi, hapū, communities and others.

So the question becomes:

What relationships — and what responsibilities — are actually being proposed?

Then there is manaakitanga.

Care and respect.

Again, who could object?

But Treasury uses manaakitanga as a principle in developing government policy, including the idea of enhancing the mana of others.

A cultural value has therefore become part of government policy thinking.

Now consider kaitiakitanga.

Looking after the environment is something virtually every New Zealander can support.

But kaitiakitanga has gone further.

The Resource Management Act defines it as the exercise of guardianship by tangata whenua, in accordance with tikanga Māori, over natural and physical resources.

The Act also requires decision-makers to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga.

So we are no longer talking simply about protecting the environment.

We are also talking about whose values and interests receive particular recognition when decisions are made.

Then there is tikanga.

Of the six words, this may be the most important.

Tikanga is about Māori customs, practices, principles and ways of determining what is right or appropriate.

And this isn't confined to government policy.

The Law Commission says tikanga Māori has been steadily gaining recognition in New Zealand courts and statutes.

It notes that the Supreme Court has affirmed that tikanga may be a source of enforceable rights and interests and is relevant to the development of the common law.

That means tikanga can be relevant to how New Zealand law itself operates.

And that raises a very important question:

Who determines what tikanga requires — and how far should it influence laws that apply to everyone?

That isn't an attack on Māori culture.

It is a question about the legal system of the entire country.

Then we have kotahitanga.

Unity.

Working together.

Sounds good.

But unity can mean different things.

It could mean all New Zealanders working together as equal citizens.

Or it could mean collective Māori unity and collective Māori decision-making.

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Treasury uses kotahitanga as a principle for more aligned and coordinated government.

But its framework also includes tikanga and refers to making decisions in 'partnership' with the 'Treaty partner'.

So again, we should ask:

When government talks about 'partnership', what does that partnership actually mean?

Finally, wairuatanga — spirituality.

Māori, like everyone else, are entitled to their spiritual beliefs.

But spirituality has also entered official government policy thinking.

Treasury's He Ara Waiora framework places wairua — spirit — at the centre of its Māori conception of wellbeing.

Again, the question isn't whether Māori should have spiritual beliefs.

Of course they should.

The question is:

Should a particular spiritual worldview become part of the framework through which public policy is developed?

That is a legitimate question in a secular democracy.

So let's step back.

None of these words sounds threatening.

Quite the opposite.

Care.

Respect.

Relationships.

Unity.

Guardianship.

The right way of doing things.

Spiritual wellbeing.

Who could possibly object?

And that is why we should look beyond the translation.

Don't simply ask what the word means.

Ask what it is being used to achieve.

There is nothing wrong with Māori culture.

There is nothing wrong with Māori language.

And there is nothing wrong with Māori maintaining their customs and traditions.

But there is a difference between respecting a culture and changing the structure of society.

A cultural value is one thing.

Political and legal authority is another.

Imagine somebody stood up tomorrow and said:

"We should give one ethnic group a greater role in deciding how New Zealand's natural resources are managed because of their ancestry."

Many New Zealanders would quite reasonably ask: Why?

But wrap the same proposal in words such as kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga, whanaungatanga and kotahitanga, and it can sound very different.

It sounds caring.

It sounds inclusive.

It sounds respectful.

It sounds difficult to oppose.

And that is the Trojan horse.

The concern isn't that Māori values are dangerous.

The concern is that attractive cultural concepts can make fundamental changes to the way our society operates sound harmless.

And if those changes result in different political or legal rights, separate decision-making powers, or greater authority based on ethnicity or whakapapa, then we are no longer simply talking about culture.

We are talking about the kind of country New Zealand is becoming.

A country based on equal individual citizenship?

Or one increasingly based on collective ethnic identity, whakapapa and collective authority?

That is a debate every New Zealander has a right to have.

And we should have it openly.

Not after the change has happened — before it happens.

Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.