John Key funny

Arise Sir John

Disclaimer:

Whilst I have reblogged this article from another blog, and I do agree that John Key has been a disaster for this country, it does not mean I or 1Law4All agree with every statement made in the article. For example, I don’t believe we have true poverty in New Zealand. If you calculate the number of people living in poverty as the number living on a percentage of the average wage, then we will always have poverty, even if that same percentage are on an income of $100,000.00 a year. It’s a ridiculous way to decide if people are living in poverty. I also know that by always stating the number of kids, rather than the number of people, is designed to tug at the heart strings, (or guilt strings), because most of us know that if kids are living in poverty, it’s their parents fault. Not the Governments or the taxpayers.

Arise Sir John

For creating a New Zealand where there are over 250,000 kids living in poverty …

For refusing to get the bodies out of the Pike River mine and thereby helping individuals avoid justice …

For Dirty Politics …

For the increasing numbers of homeless sleeping rough …

For selling off shares in the electricity companies and in Air New Zealand and enriching the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us …

For presiding over the development of a housing crisis yet refusing to accept that one existed …

For increasing the Crown’s debt from $10 billion to $93 billion and claiming this was evidence of sound financial management …

For widening inequality in NZ …

For the widening sexist pay gap in NZ …

For legislating to give Sky City further gambling rights so that the convention centre can be built on the back of problem gamblers …

For attacking scientists, reporters and media …

For the repeated lie that every budget would result in a further 170,000 jobs being created …

For ruling out an increase in GST but then implementing one …

For stuffing up negotiations with Warner Bros, Rio Tinto, SkyCity …

For systematically under funding health …

For deliberately running down state housing stock …

For increased surveillance and “jihadi “brides” fear mongering …

For running down the education system with stupid ideological policies …

For the rising rates of “third world” diseases of poverty and overcrowding …

For claiming that tax cuts were fiscally neutral when they caused Crown debt to escalate …

For wanting to make New Zealand a nirvana for the 1% …

For harassing a waitress (and making us an international laughing stock) …

For the stupid failed “War on P” …

For wasting $26m on a failed vanity flag referendum …

For suspending local democracy in Canterbury …

For the creation of the working poor …

For under funding mental health and the highest suicide rates ever …

For claiming that he would apply higher Ministerial standards but then allowing Murray McCully to complete #sheepgate …

For destroying New Zealand’s ability to respond to climate change …

For the fiasco of private prisons …

For taxing paperboys and girls …

For forcing the TPP down our throats …

For turning your back on meaningful refugee increases …

For trying to use tax payer money to pay your Bradley Ambrose payout …

For destroying so many of our waterways in the name of intensified dairying …

For sheltering ministers who have been incompetent and worse …

For lying habitually about everything …

And for all that – achieving nothing of vision or significance …

For pandering to Maori demands, fueling resentment and entitlement and increasing racism in New Zealand…

For allowing mega companies to take our fresh water for nothing…

For championing racist policies which have destroyed New Zealand’s democracy…

Arise Sir John.

By: of The Standard

The last few in green I’ve added. I’m sure you can think of many more. Let’s hear them in the comments!

 

Save

Save

Anthony Willy

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

 

Posted on
By

Posted on: NZCPR.COM

Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box. Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of; land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district but will become subject to the wishes of unelected group.

However, given that there seems to be increasing disinterest in local body elections one may wonder whether this is necessarily such a bad thing. Why not leave it to the professional staff and an unelected pressure group to determine what activities are, and are not allowed to take place within a district. In other words is democracy such a necessary or good thing? To answer this question it is helpful to start with three aphorisms:

  • “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – Lord Acton 1887.
  • “Democracy is a psychopathic expression of inferiority” – William Joyce, an American better known as Lord Haw Haw who broadcast defeatist propaganda from Berlin during to the war. He was hung as a traitor by the British at war’s end.
  • Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” – Winston Churchill 1947.

Churchill uttered this in the aftermath of the general election in which Clement Attlee’s Labour government swept to power. It was an astonishing affirmation of the place of democracy as a political institution. Having lately been instrumental in salvaging the free world from German hegemony, Churchill was nevertheless comprehensively rejected by the United Kingdom voters. One would have expected some bitterness, or questioning of a political structure which intended to and did demolish much of the existing social norms into which he was born, and which his party represented. Not so – he continued to believe in the common sense and life experiences of the electorate in deciding who should govern the country. What then are some of the other forms about which Churchill spoke? To mention a few:

[Read more…]

Muriel Newman

Democracy Under Attack

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK

By Dr Muriel Newman

NZCPR Weekly:

Democracy has been described as a ‘fragile flower’. Indeed it is, and it’s something we take for granted because our relatively young society has not yet experienced its collapse. But it’s that complacency along with a naive assumption that serious social disorder could never really happen here, that has created opportunities for those who seek to undermine democracy for their own personal gratification and enrichment.

The sad truth is that we have allowed those who want to subvert democracy to have a free reign.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator retired Judge and former university law lecturer Anthony Willy, outlines what’s been going on:

“Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box.”

Anthony is, of course, referring to the consequences of the back-room political deal making  between the National and Maori parties earlier this year to unilaterally pass their ‘Mana Whakahono a Rohe’ agreements into law in such a way as to deny all public consultation and avoid any scrutiny by the wider public whatsoever.

By National’s own admission, the new powers that they granted are significant.  They will elevate any number of Maori tribal and family groups into positions of partnership with their local authorities for “plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities” – including over fresh water.

Anthony goes on to say, “Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district, but they will become subject to the wishes of unelected groups.”

He further explains, “Democracy has fathered a notion of equal importance and that is the ‘Rule of Law’. This is a lawyer’s construct and little discussed or even understood by the general public. It involves the simple imperative that laws enacted by our democratically elected government will be applied equally to all irrespective of creed, colour or social circumstance. The combination of democratic government and the rule of law are the twin pillars on which all of our freedoms rest. Without the support of both pillars the house cannot stand. Absent either of these foundations, the liberties  we hold dear cannot survive and one of the competing forms of government will come back to haunt us.”

In legislating Maori tribal groups into the status of an elite ruling class that is totally unaccountable to the public, the National Party has undermined the Rule of Law in New Zealand and corrupted democracy as we know it.

It’s fair to ask, how on earth it could have got to this stage – has the nation been asleep while iwi leaders have been advancing their sovereignty agenda?

While the iwi agenda has not been secret, it has not been entirely open either. Much of their manoeuvring has been carried out under the guise of helping disadvantaged Maori. As a result, most New Zealanders have been totally unaware that a long-running and well-planned offensive has been underway.

Some, however, have been trying to raise the alarm for years.

For more than two decades, Professor Elizabeth Rata of Auckland University has warned of the threat being posed by the bicultural movement in New Zealand. She has outlined how a powerful cultural elite from within Maoridom – who were committed to subverting democracy – were positioned inside the State system, to destroy it from within.

According to Professor Rata, biculturalism arose in the seventies, driven by left wing activists who were seeking an alternative to traditional class politics.

What they found, of course, was cultural Marxism – a socialist philosophy originated by a former leader of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, who saw ‘culture’ as the way to win the class struggle. While the traditional battle to ‘liberate’ the working class involved taking control of the ‘economic means of production and distribution’, he focused on controlling the ‘cultural means of production’. His work inspired a literal socialist march through culture-forming institutions such as the media, universities, and churches – enlightening those within about the struggle for social justice by ‘oppressed’ groups in society, centred on race, gender, and sexuality.

Professor Rata explained that many ‘biculturalists’ moved into positions of power and influence in the education and health professions, social services, and government circles, as public servants and politicians, bringing with them their political commitment to the identity politics agenda: “Victimhood was subsequently understood as oppression by colonisation, the patriarchy, and ‘Western’ culture generally – an oppression experienced by ethnic groups, indigenous peoples, women, gays, and religious minorities rather than the capitalist exploitation of working class people.”

Over the years, New Zealanders have been deceived by the bicultural activists, who have claimed that the movement was a means to greater social justice for marginalised Maori. Yet, in reality, it has been used as a Trojan Horse to enable a rich and powerful tribal elite to grow stronger at a cost to disadvantaged Maori, who are little better off today than they were back then.

John Moore, writing on the Liberation blog run by Dr Bryce Edwards of Otago University, has called identity politics an “elitist scam” that enables the state largesse flowing to groups claiming to be marginalised, to end up in the hands of the elites who run the groups, instead of those in need: “Modern social-liberalism – in the form of identity politics – has been exposed as an elitist scam. Gender politics and tino rangatiratanga struggles were all presented as a way to alleviate the poverty, oppression and discrimination of those at the bottom of society. Instead these ideologies have acted to elevate… an elite of those from subjugated sectors of society…”

Professor Rata has also pointed out that while the agenda promoted by biculturalists occurs in the name of social justice, the path to social justice cannot be through ethnic division.

This was reinforced by former US President Barack Obama in 2006, when he said, “Ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop. It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one’s family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society. Instead of opening businesses and engaging in commerce, people come to rely on patronage and payback as a means of advancing. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbour from neighbour.”

The reality is that tribalism is an archaic social structure that suits the tribal elite, and no one else. Yet this is what National is supporting through massive state subsidies.

Policies enacted under the tribal ‘by Maori for Maori’ bicultural umbrella have led to separate Maori education systems, Maori university quotas, Maori health care, Maori welfare programmes, Maori housing schemes, and Maori justice programmes. There are Maori government departments and tribunals, Maori-only consultation rights, Maori-only co-governance rights, Maori-only tax rates, and Maori-only charitable status – to name but a few of a vast array of separatist privileges that now exist to support tribalism.

The problem is that the pressure for more tribal power and control is never-ending. Now the Maori Party not only wants to restructure the entire Justice System on “the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi and the foundation of partnership”, but it is also pushing “cultural competency” and a “Maori world view” across the whole of the public sector.

The education system is the latest victim, with cultural competency requirements having become compulsory from 1 July. As a result, all primary and secondary school teachers now have to “Demonstrate a commitment to a bicultural Aotearoa New Zealand” and prioritise “Maori learners as tangata whenua”.

As Professor Barend Vlaardingerbroek explained recently in an article for the NZCPR, “Passive acquiescence won’t do any more: teachers must now be personally committed to this political paradigm. This is where the new standards leave the democratic domain and enter the totalitarian realm. Bang go teachers’ rights as citizens to hold their own opinions without interference. New Zealand teachers are being deprived of a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy – the right to disagree with ideological dicta promulgated by the political elite. This right is not about letting teachers get away with denigrating or abusing Maori kids, which falls foul of the duty of care and professional ethics. This is about hitting teachers who are actual or potential political dissenters with a stark choice: submit or vacate. And that is enforced ideological conformity – the antithesis of democracy and an infringement of teachers’ internationally acknowledged human rights.”

With there now being a critical shortage of teachers in New Zealand, one can’t help but wonder whether compulsory cultural competency requirements, that requires all teachers to not only swear an allegiance to the Maori sovereignty agenda, but to indoctrinate the children as well, is the straw that is breaking the camel’s back.

It’s all emerging as Professor Rata warned. The bicultural movement was captured by radical Maori separatists who will not stop until Maori control all governance processes – they want to return the country to Maori. “The bicultural movement in New Zealand has been a mistake – it is subverting democracy, erecting ethnic boundaries between Maori and non-Maori, and promoting a cultural elite within Maoridom.”

But she has also warned that there are two sides to biculturalism – the small elite group that are promoting it and the much larger group that is allowing it to happen.

And that’s where our fragile flower of democracy stands today.

So, what of the future and the possibility of a new government come 23 September?

The National Party has already said that if it wins sufficient support it would prefer to enter into another coalition agreement with the Maori Party after the election.

This news will have no doubt caused many former National voters to despair.

Anyone in doubt about the merits of National’s liaison with the Maori Party needs only reflect on the mess that National’s concession to the Maori Party over the foreshore and seabed has caused, whereby hundreds of Maori groups, gifted with millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to fund their opportunistic grab for New Zealand’s coastline, have lodged claims covering every square inch of our coast, many times over, forcing citizens to have to fight to protect our public rights.

Labour, it appears, would be no better as their leader Andrew Little has already said he supports Maori sovereignty. So too does the Green Party, which also wants a new constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi.

That’s also one of the goals of Gareth Morgan’s Opportunities Party – to increase Maori rights and put the Treaty at the heart of all Government affairs.

At this stage the only dissenting voice is that of Winston Peters with his call for a binding referendum of all voters on the future of the Maori seats – which, of course, are the power base of the bicultural movement and their Maori sovereignty agenda.

As the election jostling continues, one can only hope that more political parties will come to recognise the crucial importance of the Rule of Law and Democracy to New Zealanders – and realise that overwhelmingly, Kiwis want to live in a country where all citizens are treated equally.
 

The New Plymouth Racist Mayoral Zombie Reincarnates

The New Plymouth Racist Mayoral Zombie Reincarnates

Below is the alleged content of a facebook post by Murray Chong (a New Plymouth councillor) regarding the part-Maori committee on the New Plymouth council.

Iwi representation debate . . .

We had a referendum last term based having Maori Wards, and 83% of the voters didn’t want it due to it not being democratic as it was a race based rule.

On Monday we debate the set up of this new committee, and I hope our councillors remember and consider how the majority of its ratepayers voted in the above referendum.

This new Iwi representation committee will not only offer recommendations to our council (which is fine) but they will also have the power to make final decisions on the items shown below without it having to go through to full council for all elected councillors to have the final vote on.

We have elections to vote for councillors to make final decisions on our behalf and many people have suggested to me that unelected committee members should only have the authority to give recommendations to our council and definitely not have the authority to make final decisions.

This ruling that they are wanting to allow in this committee is unlike any other council committee and is not the standard democratic process.

This will be a very interesting debate on how we will all vote on this, on Monday.

Read the drivel on Stuff about how exhuming racist representation for New Plymouth is somehow a fresh start!

Iwi and council launch a new governance partnership and a fresh start


From the Racist New Plymouth Council . . .

New Governance Partnership Between NPDC and Senior Iwi Leaders Created

22 June 2017

New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) and iwi leadership have created Te Huinga Taumatua Committee to bring the expertise of iwi leaders to the Council’s decision-making process.

“This is a pleasing step forward and is about iwi leaders having a seat at the governance table,” says Mayor Neil Holdom.

Te Huinga Taumatua Committee will consist of five iwi leaders and five elected Councillors to identify and discuss issues of cultural, economic, environmental and social importance to Maori in the district. Unlike the former Iwi Relationship Subcommittee, Te Huinga Taumatua will generate items for the Council to consider as well as make recommendations on Council issues.

“The committee consists of iwi leaders with strong mana and governance experience. It will focus on issues of importance to Maori and provide strategic guidance to NPDC,” says Cr Gordon Brown.

“It’s a pleasing step forward in our partnership and we’re looking forward to the future of this governance committee,” says Cr Marie Pearce.

The committee consists of:

Mayor Neil Holdom.
Councillor Gordon Brown.
Councillor Richard Handley.
Councillor Stacey Hitchcock.
Councillor Marie Pearce.
Larry Crow (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Tama Trust).
Leanne Horo (Te Kāhui o Taranaki Trust).
Glenn Peri (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Maru Trust).
Liana Poutu (Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust).
Colleen Tuuta (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga).

The committee’s name has two parts: Te Huinga, which has a dual meaning for a gathering of people and a gathering of leaders, and Taumatua, a place where birds gather high in the trees.*

The committee will meet every five weeks starting 17 August, pending Councillors’ confirmation of its terms of reference at their next meeting on 26 June.

It will also help NPDC meet its statutory obligations relating to the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi under the Local Government Act 2002.

The committee’s full terms and references are online in the 26 June Council Meeting agenda.


* From whence they can undemocratically defecate on Ratepayers, below.

Chris Whinlayson

Vertically Tilted Playing Field

Vertically Tilted Playing Field

News from one of NZ’s foremost racists



Each iwi-hapu-whanau claimant is being offered thousands of taxpayer dollars to prepare and file their claim.

Any non-part-Maori citizen who objects must pay a court filing fee of $110.

That’s fair and even-handed, right?

 

An Ignorant Councillor

An Ignorant Councillor

On 26th April, 2017, at a relatively unimportant meeting of the district planning committee of the Hutt City Council, the chair of this committee, Lisa Bridson, took it upon herself to impose karakia (Maori prayers) on the other councillors at both the beginning and the end of the meeting.

She claimed that she had done so because “the council had an obligation to adhere to Treaty of Waitangi principles and work in partnership with Maori.” Thus did she expose her lack of knowledge of these things since the Treaty of Waitangi does not have any principles and nor does it create an obligation for councils in the 21st century to work in “partnership” with Maori.

Should she ever actually read the words of the Treaty (a short and simple document) she will find no mention of either “principles” or “partnership” for the very good reason that there aren’t any.

Lisa Bridson is not the only New Zealander to be ignorant of these things, but for her to use her position on council to impose her ignorance on others is alarming and constitutes a very good reason not to vote for her at the next council elections. Surely the Hutt can come up with better and more knowledgeable councillors than her.

The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

Don Brash and Casey Costello delivered the Hobson’s Pledge message to 200 people at the Havelock North Function Centre on Tuesday night, 28 Feb 2017.

Casey spoke about the wrong of Maori blaming their ancestry for being deprived of opportunities when they have had Treaty settlements, separate Maori broadcasting, separate Maori preschools and schools, and a separate Maori Party.

Standing on the outside it would seem the consideration and recognition of Maori issues ensured every opportunity for Maori to succeed, the Hawke’s Bay Today newspaper reported Casey as saying.

To read more and related media items, click here.

To hear Casey and Don speak – in person – the next place to be is:

Waikanae Community Centre
30 Utauta Street
Waikanae
Wellington
Monday, April 03, 2017 at 7.00 pm.

No admission fee and no collection! But there will be a book sales table.

Parliament’s Ohariu Harlot Blows His Trumpet

Parliament’s Ohariu Harlot Blows His Trumpet

Peter Dunne appalled by ‘racist’ propaganda delivered to Wellington homes

9 March 2017

Racism is a Dunne deal as yet another pro-racist privilege supporter states his position loud and clear. To hell with equality and democracy, I hear. As has oft been repeated: why don’t the media ask such poufs the obvious question: can you please explain how seeking equality for all NZ citizens is racist?

Rumours that United Future is be re-badged as Apartheid Future are unfounded, it seems.

From the dompost. (Or should that be compost?)

Leaflets distributed around Wellington’s northern suburbs are full of disgraceful, despicable racist bigotry, and should be thrown in the bin, MP Peter Dunne says. On the pamphlet the group states contributions can be made to an Orewa bank account, and claim further information can be found in books such as One Treaty, One Nation – a recent publication from Tross Publishing, and written by Hugh Barr, Don Brash, and others.

Don Brash said on Thursday night that he had not heard of the Rolling Thunder campaign, and it had nothing to do with the Hobson’s Pledge Trust. I do, of course, strongly favour New Zealand’s being a colour-blind society, where all citizens have the same constitutional status, he said.


To see what all the fuss is about, copies of those brochures can be seen, here.


10 March 2017

And here he goes again. Newshub (TV3) ran the Media Release likely put out by anti-United [Apartheid] Future. If in doubt, fudge it out! The picture caption goes:

The Ohariu MP says two anti-Treaty pamphlets have been dropped into letterboxes in his electorate.

Two lies in one. Neither the authors of One Treaty One Nation, nor 1Law4All are anti-Treaty. The Maori-language Treaty signed at Waitangi in 1840, that is. Of course, the latter-day tainted, wishful-thinking concoctions are a different matter, altogether.

Maori Statutory Board given arse card by High Court

Maori Statutory Board given arse card by High Court

 

Good news, the Maori Statutory Board has been told to sling their hook by the High Court.

A bid to protect Auckland’s Maori cultural sites has been thrown out in the High Court due to a lack of evidence as to their importance.

The Independent Maori Statutory Board appealed a decision by Auckland Council to remove provisions relating to sites of value for mana whenua from the Unitary Plan.

However, in a ruling released to the public on Tuesday, Justice Edwin Wylie rejected the appeal, saying there wasn’t enough evidence of the sites’ significance.

Complete mumbo-jumbo in other words.

The board, comprising seven mana whenua group representatives and two mataawaka representatives, sought to incorporate sites of value to mana whenua in an overlay in the unitary plan.

In September 2012, a working draft of the proposed unitary plan was released to iwi authorities, which proposed two levels of protection for sites and places of Maori cultural heritage.

Included in the draft was a schedule detailing 61 sites and places of significance to Maori, and a cultural heritage layer which would cover about 2231 public and private sites.

That was whittled down from about 9000 different sites through consultation with public and mana whenua groups in September 2013.

The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) recommended Auckland Council delete a number of provisions affecting Maori from the proposed unitary plan, including the schedule of sites of value to mana whenua which was to be included in the district and regional plan section, until evidence of their significance had been established.

Justice Wylie found that of the 2213 sites proposed, only 140 had specific submissions and evidence provided from mana whenua, and only 16 were supported by detailed evidence at the hearing.

He said, having heard evidence from a large number of parties both for and against the overlay of sites, the panel was entitled to delete the overlay of sites from the proposed plan.

Without evidence of mana whenua values to support all sites, the provisions lacked sufficient evidence overall, Justice Wylie ruled.

Knock me down with a feather, Justice Wylie got one right for once.

Reblogged from: Whale Oil

Save

Orewa Rotary Re-visited 2017 (Part 2)

Orewa Rotary Re-visited 2017 (Part 2)

14 February 2017

Governor Hobson’s Pledge – A Challenge To The Prime Minister

It’s almost exactly 14 years since I first addressed the Orewa Rotary Club, and almost exactly 13 years since I came here as Leader of the National Party to give a speech which, for a time, turned “Orewa” from a place to a date, so that people spoke of “before Orewa” or “after Orewa”, rather than north of Orewa or south of Orewa!

An odd thing happened after I spoke here 13 years ago.  As soon as I’d finished, the pundits pounced.  As pundits do. They know more than us, don’t they?  And they certainly knew what my speech would mean. They said I’d lost the plot. They said National’s ratings would plunge. They said it would be a disaster for the party.  And of course they were absolutely… wrong.

National’s poll ratings shot up: one of the biggest jumps ever.  Eighteen months later, in the 2005 election, we almost became the government. As it was, we won 21 more seats than we had had in 2002.  Our party vote was the highest in any election since 1990 and 18% higher than it had been in 2002.

I believe my speech here triggered that amazing jump in support.  I believe the people – not the pundits – knew what I was saying. They knew that it was not – and never will be – racist to call for equality. They knew what they wanted New Zealand to stand for: A fair go, a fair deal.  For everyone. Not favouritism for some.  And definitely not favouritism based on race. They wanted New Zealand to be a country where everyone shared the same air – which is the meaning of the hongi – the same rights, and the same opportunities. The people knew then – and they know now – that all racism is racist, no matter which race benefits. And they didn’t want a bar of it!  Not then. Not now.

But, 13 years on, racism still rules the roost. The push for privilege persists and our politicians still pander to it.  Inch by inch, step by step they have created islands of influence, and positions of power…for one race only. Make no mistake, our Parliament has done this, our politicians. They’ve been busy passing racist laws while dishonestly branding other people ‘racist’, using a lie to replace logic. They call the people who disagree with them a fringe. Well, we’re not a fringe.  We’re a throng. They label me a lone voice attacking the Treaty. But I’m not.

The Treaty is a wonderful stick for activists to beat the rest of us with…It’s been the basis of a self-perpetuating industry in academic and legal circles.

That’s from the Bruce Jesson Memorial lecture delivered in 2000 by…David Lange. He criticised “the preoccupation of successive governments with the Treaty of Waitangi” because, and these are his words, “the Treaty cannot be any kind of founding document, as it is sometimes said to be. It does not resolve the question of sovereignty, if only because one version of it claims one form of sovereignty and the other version claims the opposite. The Court of Appeal once, absurdly, described it as a partnership between races, but it obviously is not.”

As our increasingly dismal national day continues to show, the Treaty is no basis for nationhood. It doesn’t express the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and it doesn’t have any unifying concept.

The Treaty itself contains no principles which can usefully guide government or courts. It is a bald agreement, anchored in its time and place, and the public interest in it is the same as the public interest in enforcing any properly-made agreement. To go further than that is to acknowledge the existence of undemocratic forms of rights, entitlements, or sovereignty.

So, in 2000, David Lange was concerned about the “dangers posed by the increasing entrenchment of the Treaty” especially since “its implications are profoundly undemocratic.”

Then, in 2002, Bill English, as Leader of the National Party, discussed the Treaty in a speech at the New Zealand Centre for Public Law and noted that Hobson and the missionaries took great pains to explain to Maori the decision they had to make, and the kind of sovereignty and order the British would create. Maori were prepared to cede their sovereignty because of the anticipated benefits of a common, non-segregated polity in New Zealand. The solution to the challenges that the Treaty presents to all New Zealanders lies in a single standard of citizenship for all.

What’s happened since those speeches were made?

In May 2003, Bill English committed a future National Government to the abolition of separate Maori electorates, as the 1980s Royal Commission on the Electoral System had recommended if MMP was adopted.

In 2005, believing that historical grievances would damage race relations in New Zealand if they dragged on endlessly and weren’t resolved, I committed a future National Government to resolving these grievances within six years, and also pledged to scrap Maori electorates.

John Key made similar commitments in 2008.

Tragically, we’ve been moving in exactly the wrong direction ever since.

•    The National Government has certainly sped up the resolution of historical grievances but the process still drags on, and too often involves granting not just financial redress but also so-called “co-governance”, giving unelected tribal appointees the right to have a decision-making role in local government.
•     Maori electorates – created for just five years in 1867 to give all Maori men the vote, whether they owned property or not – are still with us 150 years later.  The Government has quietly abandoned any suggestion they will be scrapped, and a Labour MP has a Bill in the Members’ ballot which would, if drawn and passed, “entrench” Maori electorates.  And this despite the fact that the need for Maori electorates to ensure Maori voices are heard in Parliament has long gone, with more than 20 MPs now identifying as Maori.
•     A Bill to amend the RMA now wending its way through Parliament would, if passed in its present form, require all local authorities, within 30 days of an election, to invite their local tribes into “iwi participation agreements”, which would entrench co-governance on a grand scale.
•     The legislation setting up the Auckland super-city said there had to be an Independent Maori Statutory Board, made up of unelected appointees, and Auckland Council chose to give the members of this unelected Board voting rights on most Council committees.
•    For several years now, the Government has been talking behind closed doors with tribal leaders about how to give them a special right, based only on tribal affiliation, to influence how fresh water is allocated, despite the Government’s long-held contention that “nobody owns water” and despite decisions about the allocation of water being traditionally the exclusive right of elected local councils.
•     In recent months, discussions have been going on, almost entirely below the radar, which are likely to lead to half of the members of the Hauraki Gulf Forum being tribal appointees.  This body has potentially far-reaching powers covering the sea area of the Hauraki Gulf and all of the extensive land catchments around it.
•     Last year, we saw the Maori king expressing the hope that by 2025 Maori would be able to “share sovereignty” in New Zealand, and nobody pointed out to him that all Maori already “share sovereignty” because all Maori adults have a vote.  But I suspect that wasn’t what he had in mind.  I suspect he was continuing the myth that Maori chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty, despite overwhelming evidence that they did do so, and understood that was what they were doing, as Sir Apirana Ngata insisted in 1922 when he wrote “The Treaty of Waitangi, An Explanation”.
•     Very recently, we’ve seen Labour and the Greens saying they would make it compulsory to learn te Reo in all schools, even though I believe that learning to read and write good English would have much greater practical value for all children, including Maori children. And that’s not just because English is spoken by the vast majority of New Zealanders, but also because it is the only genuinely international language – the language in which most scientific articles are written, the language in which most international commerce is conducted and the language of international aviation.
•     Increasingly, we see unfounded claims that the Treaty involved some kind of partnership between the Maori people and the Queen, and we see this idea of partnership particularly being promoted in the education and health sectors.  Indeed, endorsing this partnership idea seems to be essential for any kind of leadership appointment in the government sector.

But as Winston Peters said in a speech in Paihia earlier this month: If no-one in the British Empire was in partnership with Queen Victoria on the 5th February 1840, how come the New Zealand Maori was one day later?

The expression partnership is either creative and legally and constitutionally wrong or had to include every New Zealander regardless of ethnic background being in partnership with the Crown.[1]

•    Last, and by all means least, the newly formed Opportunity Party is so confused by this imagined partnership that it wants to create an Upper House of Parliament, with half its members being Maori.

As I said earlier, those of us who say these developments are  totally inconsistent with any reasonable interpretation of the Treaty or the meaning of democracy are routinely abused as racists, even though what we are advocating is not only not racist it is in fact the exact opposite! We’re saying that all racism is racist.  We’re saying that no one race should have any kind of constitutional preference.  We want New Zealand to be a country where every citizen, of every colour and creed, has the same political rights, no matter when they or their ancestors came to the land we share and the country we are building together.

To call that racist is the epitome of Orwellian double-speak.

It is important to stress that we are not arguing that Maori are “privileged” in any economic sense. While a few Maori are among the wealthiest in the land, average Maori incomes are well below the average for other New Zealanders.  And of course because of that, Maori New Zealanders rightly receive a larger share of government social welfare and education budgets.  Most government spending is rightly geared to need, and not to ethnicity.

But we say that giving constitutional preferences to those with a Maori ancestor – along with ancestors of many other ethnicities too – is leading us down the road to racial conflict.

And who benefits from these unprincipled constitutional preferences?  Assuredly not most Maori. They gain absolutely nothing from such preferences, which overwhelming benefit only the Maori and Pakeha elite.  It is that elite who get the big directors’ fees, and the fees paid when consulting with Maori is a legal requirement.  It is the same elite who get to play with the millions handed out in Treaty settlements, not Maori truck drivers or freezing workers or builders or the thousands of others in the work force.

Many Maori, in professions, business and trades, resent being patronized by current policies which seem to imply that, without special privileges, they’re not good enough to make it on their own. They know they are.

They want what Governor Hobson said, as each chief signed the Treaty, to stay true today. “He iwi tahi tatoa. We are now one people.”

In 1922, Sir Apirana Ngata wrote that the second part of Article III of the Treaty, which “imparts to [all the Maori people of New Zealand] all the rights and privileges of British subjects,” was the most important part of the Treaty.  “This article,” he said, “represents the greatest benefit bestowed upon the Maori people by Her Majesty the Queen… It states that the Maori and Pakeha are equal before the law, that is they are to share the rights and privileges of British subjects.”

Those of us behind the Hobson’s Pledge Trust share the view of great leaders like Sir Apirana and Governor Hobson that New Zealanders became one people when the Treaty was signed.

We reject absolutely the notion that the Treaty created different rules and different rights for those with a Maori ancestor and those without.  We stand proudly with Martin Luther King and share his great vision:

I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

“…Judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” That’s our goal.  And I believe it is at the heart of who we are and what we want New Zealand to be. Those who built this country were determined to put rank and status and privilege behind them. They wanted this to be a land of equals, an egalitarian land where your choices and your chances didn’t depend on class or colour but on character. Yes, we’ve failed sometimes, I acknowledge that. But let’s not fail again.

We cannot abolish privilege by creating privilege.  By agreeing to do so, our politicians are creating a new injustice and poisoning our future.  I say the racism of our elite has done its dash and had its day.  We have a duty to our history and to the best dreams of our ancestors to stand for equality and demand a fair say, a shared say, with no privilege granted on the basis of race.

If you share that vision, join Hobson’s Pledge and help us spread the word.

Especially this year, when you can tell your Member of Parliament, and anybody standing for election to Parliament, that you want New Zealand to be, as Martin Luther King said, a place where every citizen, irrespective of the colour of their skin, is treated as an equal.

Ask anybody seeking your vote: Which do you support? A single standard of citizenship or race-based rights for some? If they won’t answer you or say they support race-based rights, then tell them they will not get your vote.

And challenge our Prime Minister to explain how current policy is even remotely consistent with the National Party’s longstanding commitment to equal citizenship, and to his own unambiguous statement in 2002, that “The solution to the challenges that the Treaty presents to all New Zealanders lies in a single standard of citizenship.”
________________________________________

Click here to go to Part 1.

[1] Speech by the Rt. Hon. Winston Peters “The Treaty of Waitangi as it was and should be,” Paihia, 3 February 2017.

1 2 3 4
%d bloggers like this: