To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.
It was an afternoon tea party in a sought-after leafy suburb in a New Zealand city. Yes, such goings-on are still going on, but only rarely. The conversation turned from cafes and funerals to books. The hostess complained that she couldn't spend her book tokens because the local bookshop was "hopelessly woke".
"It's all Te Ao Maori," she said. Then she remembered that one of their number was part-Maori, but she felt like a kid who starts running down a steep hill and can't stop. She just had to mention "Maori fatigue". Being tea-party goers they politely ignored the gaffe and changed the subject. But it was a cri de coeur. She'd said the quiet part out loud and they probably all concurred, even the one who was part-Maori.
This social liability who can't redeem her book vouchers has a good friend who emigrated to New Zealand from Rhodesia, and is now afraid that the native national liberation groups she fled are emerging in 'Aotearoa'. Rhodesia, Nigeria, South Africa, Ethiopia(Abyssinia), Cuba, Sudan, Persia, Libya, Columbia, Venezuela and Guyana - they too have been renamed after reversion to 'indigenous' rule.
No one race or ethnicity is 'indigenous' to New Zealand, but that inconvenient truth isn't allowed to interfere with its Maori claimants' insistence that our founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi, did not cede sovereignty to the British Crown. New Zealand's Prime Minister,Christopher Luxon, at least acknowledges that easily verifiable fact and so he should, because his Coalition Government was elected to govern accordingly (and did not) - but the Opposition's Chris Hipkins stands with the Maori sovereignty movement (and its voting power).
Our country is divided: on its past and its future. Either we yield to Maori Wonderfulness (pace, Sir Bob) and demands for special, racist treatment meted out by virtue of brown skin, or we vote in the next election for a government which compels Maori to honour their Treaty undertakings, and mandates the "Equality of citizenship before the law" implicit in that document. Parliament is our “Sovereign Body” —- NOT Maori ; NOT the Judiciary and NOT the Waitangi Tribunal.
Or we all choose to identify as Maori. That would throw a large spanner in the Treaty grievance industry's works.
Otherwise, Maori sovereignty will arrive by the movement's target date of 2040 and New Zealand will lose representational democracy and discover racism by another name: ethnocracy.
And that's no more than New Zealand deserves. The article below speaks of "Preserving a democracy where every child born in New Zealand - regardless of ancestry - has the same standing before the law and same opportunity to succeed". But every child unborn in this country (and likely all the countries cited above) is denied the same standing before the law.
The right to life itself is more fundamental to a civilised society than any right to equal citizenship before the law. There's nothing else for New Zealand, and any nation, but to recognise the right of Jesus Christ, Sovereign and King, to His creation and to rule it.
 |
| Lady Tureita Moxon |
From Don Brash at Bassett and Mitchell:
"The Total Annihilation of Te Tiriti in the Health System" is the heading on a press statement issued by Lady Tureiti Moxon referring to the Government’s decision to change the wording in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act from “give effect to” Te Tiriti principles to merely “take into account” those principles.
She claims this “weakens Treaty obligations in health legislation” and represents “the total annihilation of te Tiriti in the health system”.
What on Earth is she talking about?
The press statement went on to suggest that the change in wording in legislation “will lead to avoidable suffering and preventable early death for Maori who already die seven years earlier than any other cohort in the population”.
“It is not an abstract constitutional debate”, she said. “It is about whether Maori live longer, healthier lives or whether governments continue making decisions that knowingly harm our people”.
This is an outrageous statement, and were I the Minister of Health I would be tempted to sue her for implying that the Government is, or will be after the wording change, “[continuing to make] decisions that knowingly harm our people”.
Of course, there is absolutely no reason why health legislation should refer to the Treaty, or te Tiriti, at all. It is a modern fashion.
The Treaty, whether in English or in te reo Maori, is an extremely simple document:
it involved the chiefs agreeing to cede sovereignty to the Queen in perpetuity; in return, the chiefs were guaranteed the continued ownership of all their property; and all New Zealanders were to have equal rights.
In New Zealand, we don’t have a written constitution but those basic principles remain central to our unwritten constitution. The King is our Head of State; we all have the right to own property (although the state has steadily qualified that right for all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori); and we are equal under the law.
There is absolutely no need to “give effect to” or “take into account” the Treaty in either language, or in any legislation, except perhaps to assert that all New Zealanders, no matter when they or their ancestors arrived on these shores, have equal rights.
Yes, on average Maori life expectancy is a little short of the average life expectancy of European New Zealanders, though it is vastly better than it was in 1840, and the gap is no doubt largely explained by life style choices around smoking and diet.
The life expectancy of Asian New Zealanders is a couple of years longer than that of other New Zealanders, and nobody is seriously suggesting that that is because the New Zealand state discriminates in favour of Asians.
The Government is absolutely right to look carefully at references to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation, and in my view most of those references should be removed entirely.
But we would all be better off if we had an agreed understanding of what the Treaty actually provided, and for that reason it was a tragedy that Parliament threw out, without any serious consideration, the Treaty Principles Bill promoted by the ACT Party.
At some point, we will need to agree what the Treaty meant, and what it did not mean. Until we have agreed that, we will endlessly be debating rather silly arguments of the kind advanced by Lady Moxon.
And it will become more and more meaningless as we continue to marry across ethnic lines. Lady Moxon’s mother was Margaret Hawkins, so it is at least possible that Lady Moxon herself has both Maori and European ancestors.https://www.brashandmitchell.com/
2026 finds New Zealand standing at a critical political and social intersection.
The path New Zealand takes will in some part,likely be decided at the ballot box on November 7th, and will most probably be central to heated and continued constitutional discussion and argument into the late 2020s.
With a population of 5.3 million New Zealand is wrestling with a fragile economy and a constitutional and an identity crisis. If our country is to ever secure a prosperous future, surely it is now time to turn away from the politically-imposed obstructions of co-governance, partnership and Maori sovereignty.
Why? Simply because an ethnocracy is fundamentally incapable of building, let alone sustaining, a dynamic, forward-looking nation. Yet in so many facets of our lives we are witnessing and sanctioning a consolidation of the ties of co-governance.
2040 is set to be a monumental year - specifically as February 6th 2040 is the bicentenary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.
It is widely recognized by Maori leaders, activists, and academic groups as a target date for the realisation of Maori self-determination/sovereignty and the attendant constitutional transformation.
By 2040, New Zealand is projected to be a significantly more diverse and older nation, driven by immigration and an aging “baby boomer” generation.
Stats NZ predict our population is likely to have reached 6 million. Maori, or people who profess to be Maori, are projected to reach 1.2 million, making up 20% of the total population. Asian immigrants - and this is influential - are expected to surpass the Maori population by the late 2020s. By 2040, the Asian community could represent nearly 25-30% of the population.
The European demographic is the only ethnic group projected to see its share of the population decrease, declining from 70% in 2018 to approximately 64% by 2040.
Today, co-governance and partnership are what many believe to be the “handbrakes of democracy and prosperity.” They are not the foundations or anchors of a stable, bicultural nation as many try to claim.
Unleashing and realising New Zealand’s potential as a dynamic, forward looking nation requires the Maori sovereignty movement to be unceremoniously thrown back in the dark cupboard it emerged from. It is time to move past the dictates of Maori sovereignty activists and refocus on the foundations of our nation; equal citizenship, and one unified identity.
To give us any chance of ensuring a stable future, the next government must prioritise equal citizenship and economic growth over factions that covet and promote division and separatism. Side-stepping the Maori sovereignty crisis will ultimately condemn New Zealand to third-world economic decline.
The rising tide of Maori sovereignty seeks a new written, partnership-based constitution. The framework the sovereignty advocates pursue would embed Māori control through a final veto over all legislation. New Zealand would be transformed from a representative democracy into an ethnocracy; A state where a minority, based on contrived indigenous ancestry, holds disproportionate political power.
Under the Ethnocracy model, the “partnership” interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi is used to bypass the principle of “one person, one vote” thereby creating a governance structure where tribal interests can override the will of the general electorate!
New Zealand is on a path toward deep racial fragmentation and economic deterioration. By the time the full impact hits, the government coffers will likely have been completely drained.
Halting the step toward Maori sovereignty requires a government that rejects governing by division. To secure a unified democratic future, public policy must be stripped of identity politics, restoring and emphasising the fundamental principle that every citizen holds equal standing under one law.
They must demonstrate political resolve and exercise strong leadership to navigate the anticipated fierce Maori backlash. “When people become used to preferential treatment, equal treatment is deemed discrimination.” (Thomas Sowell).
 |
After weathering the social backlash, they are then compelled to take the critical and determined steps that enable the decoupling of ethnicity from governance.
Focus must be on full adherence to Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi. Article 3 guarantees all New Zealanders the same rights and privileges as British subjects. This is the foundation of equal citizenship. All government policies must be based on need, not want and definitely not race. We have institutions able to ensure that social interventions help the most vulnerable regardless of their family tree.
Our public services must be compelled to abandon the embedded race-based governance and perspective and begin to build unified, transparent, and accountable institutions. Co-governance models in health, water, and local government must be replaced by unified, democratically accountable structures.
Co-governance erodes ratepayer/taxpayer accountability, allowing unelected tribal representatives to override public interest. Ending this requires a direct strike by government on the Local Government Act.
Invalidating the Local Government Act that stipulates local bodies “… fulfill statutory obligations for Maori participation in decision-making.” That mandate forces councils to prioritize Maori participation over democratic accountability and it must go.
The government must then declare the country will have competitive, outcomes-based social contracts with the populace. Currently, so many social services are “by Maori, for Maori” using Iwi-led providers with guaranteed contracts that seemingly assures financial success to the provider.
Universal standards must be the norm and the two-tier system where Maori providers operate under different regulatory or accountability frameworks than general providers must be eliminated.
A needs-based emphasis would move us toward more open and transparent competition. A race-blind approach must be instituted for all government tendering. Any organisation be it a church, a charity, or a private firm must be given the ability to bid to provide social services on an even field.
Any contracts awarded or renewed must be based on demonstrated or proven outcomes (e.g., the number of people moved into full-time work) rather than the cultural identity of the provider.
Health New Zealand must decide to end the controversies and inequity - the outright dishonesty of “Equity Adjusting” scores in surgical waitlists that only underline the erroneous use of ethnicity as a clinical priority factor.
We need the government to enforce policy that mandates waitlists are determined strictly by clinical urgency, time spent waiting, and geographic isolation.
Priority cannot be based on ancestry! Needs-blind healthcare is the priority.
With the government's review of ministries and government departments, one requiring a serious investigation is Te Puni Kokiri (TPK), the Ministry of Maori Development.
TPK is the Government’s chief advisor on Māori wellbeing and Maori/Crown relations and now leads policy formulation, monitors public service delivery to Maori, and oversees the Crown’s compliance with Treaty settlement commitments.
Reporting to Minister Tama Potaka, TPK's broad mandate demands srutiny of taxpayer spending; following the '23 North Island storms the ministry injected $136 million into regional marae recovery and relocation packages.
Administered by the Ministry of Justice, the Waitangi Tribunal invites increased scrutiny. Do we still need it? While its closure would trigger immediate, predictable protests, a growing number of people believe the Tribunal has run its course. The self- expanding role of the tribunal must be promptly and closely examined as it sees itself as a “parallel government” and inappropriately intervenes in the policymaking process of a democratically elected government.
By launching urgent inquiries into proposed legislation, such as the government’s Treaty Principles Bill they demonstrate a distinct self-importance.
The National-NZ First coalition agreement will initiate a review of the Waitangi Tribunal designed to reassert parliamentary sovereignty.
Given that parliamentary sovereignty allows the government to amend the Treaty of Waitangi Act and narrow the Tribunal’s scope, the necessity of a formal review is questionable.
Political manoeuvrings and appeasement?
Will the re-election of the current coalition halt the momentum toward Māori sovereignty by 2040? Absolutely not!
However, a Labour-led coalition would undoubtedly accelerate the movement’s objectives. Preventing this outcome requires a long-term strategy.
Re-election of the current government is merely the first step; the true battleground lies with the successive governments of 2029, 2032, and 2035. It is during this critical window that voters must act to decelerate the gathering momentum of the “Māori Sovereignty 2040” movement.
An ethnocracy in a small country deep in the southern Pacific Ocean, where so-called indigenous ancestry guarantees tribal rule and superior socio-economic status for a minority, will deliver isolation, economic stagnation, and permanent social division.
The future of New Zealand belongs solely in the hands of its citizens. Not in the hands politicians or radical activists.
Preserving a democracy where every child born in New Zealand - regardless of ancestry - has the same standing before the law and same opportunity to succeed in a modern, global economy must be the goal.
As long as there is financial gain to be derived from the “deprivation of colonisation” mantra, there will forever be those who choose to beat that drum. They must be ignored, not just by the ruling government, but most importantly, by the voters.
Shaking off the shackles of co-governance is not an act of hostility! It is an act of preservation. https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/pee-kay-equal-treatment-is-deemed-discrimination
 |
| The Holy Trinity and Saints in Glory Sebastiano Conca |
No comments:
Post a Comment