Dr Muriel Newman
Whangarei, New Zealand
Sunday, June 4, 2017Ethnic-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.” – Barack Obama, 2006
The plan by the Maori tribal elite to gain a privileged status and co-governance rights over New Zealand is further advanced than most people realise.
The basis for seeking such privileges is racial – it depends on the adoption of ‘biculturalism’ by Government institutions as a de facto ‘official’ policy.
Discriminatory fundingWith roots in the struggle for social justice, biculturalism has long embraced ‘affirmative action’, whereby special State privilege – usually in the form of Government funding based on race rather than need – is awarded to members of the group claiming to be victims of discrimination.
The problem is that, not only does this state largesse usually end up in the hands of the elites who run the groups instead of those in need, but by discriminating against all other New Zealanders, the Government is undermining a cornerstone of democracy – namely that all citizens should be treated as equals. Unfair and fallacious
Despite New Zealand being a country of over 200 nationalities, biculturalism is based on the fallacy that there are two cultures – a Maori culture with special privileges in law for 15% of the population, and a second culture, with no privileges, representing everyone else.
Over recent years, the Maori sovereignty movement – along with opportunistic iwi leaders – have been promoting biculturalism as a ‘power sharing’ mechanism.
By claiming that it has authority derived from the Treaty of Waitangi – namely a ‘partnership’ between Maori and the Crown – advocates, including politicians, members of the judiciary, academics, bureaucrats and activists, have elevated it into an unassailable position of influence. Treaty Provisions
Their representation of partnership is, however, at odds with the traditional interpretation of the Treaty, as expressed by the great Maori leader the Hon Sir Apirana Ngata in a 1922 book he wrote for the Maori Purposes Fund Board explaining the real meaning of the Maori version: Under Article One, “The Chiefs assembled including Chiefs not present at the assembly hereby cede absolutely to the Queen of England forever the government of all of their lands.”
Under Article Two, “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the full possession of their lands, their homes and all their possessions.”
Under Article Three, “Maori and Pakeha are equal before the Law, that is, they are to share the rights and privileges of British subjects.”
In other words, it was accepted wisdom that the Queen was our Sovereign, and that the Treaty provided equality for all citizens.
The Lands Case
The concept of ‘partnership’ emerged as a result of the 1987 Court of Appeal “Lands” case – between the Maori Council and the Attorney General – when one of the Judges, Cook P, used the expression, the “treaty signified a partnership between races.”
He qualified this by saying “partnership” was in the context of a well understood common law requirement that partners must act toward each other “with the utmost good faith which is a characteristic obligation of partnership.”
While that point was reinforced by the other Judges in the case, this nuance was ignored by Maori activists who twisted the words to claim that the Court had ruled that the Treaty promoted a ‘partnership’ between Maori and the Crown.
This was a gross misrepresentation, as Judge Anthony Willy explained in his paper Sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi:
“On any careful reading of the Maori Council case the Court did not decide as has become commonly supposed that Maori and non-Maori were in partnership with each other, a partnership created by the Treaty, merely that the Crown and Maori owe each other duties which are akin to those owed by partners to a commercial transaction. In the result Maori and the Crown are not partners in any sense of the word. Indeed, it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of its subjects. The true position is that the Crown is sovereign but owes duties of justice and good faith to the Maori descendants of those who signed the treaty.”
Essentially then, it is the notion of the Crown as sovereign that Maori are challenging through biculturalism.
One of the bicultural movement’s leading proponents is Professor Whatarangi Winiata, who, as Maori Party President in 2008, told National’s newly elected Prime Minister John Key, that his Party wasn’t seeking a coalition agreement but rather a treaty partner agreement: “It won’t be looking to be a coalition partner it will seek to find a treaty partner … and that’s one with a high level of independence as well as influence in the house.”
He clearly saw the Maori Party’s role as being over and above that of simply being one among many political parties represented in Parliament: “The Maori Party will want to have more direct influence on what happens in parliament. You see, they form the Maori house the tikanga Maori house in parliament.”
The ‘Tikanga Maori House’ concept had been proposed by Professor Winiata as a model for the Anglican Church in the early nineties, and, introduced under their new bicultural constitution, had a power of veto over the proceedings of the General Synod.
This is what Professor Winiata had in mind for the Maori Party in Government: “It means the partners respect each other and the decisions they come to are not determined by a head count.”
In other words, the Maori Party expected to share equally in co-governing the country, irrespective of the number of MPs. They wanted a central role – as a government-within-a-government – whereby decisions were not determined by anything as a mundane and democratic as a “head count.”
This has now become the driving objective of biculturalists – 50:50 power-sharing arrangements between the Maori tribal elite, and Crown agents.
The puzzle is why we, as a nation, are allowing ourselves to be duped by the political strategy of these Maori supremacists. This situation, whereby a radical minority group – with strong support from within the country’s establishment – is forcing the majority of citizens to kowtow to their agenda, is unparalleled around the world.
The answer may lie in the way that biculturalism is being presented – a ‘soft sell’ appealing to the public’s sense of morality and fairness, while at the same time labelling those who question their intentions as ‘racists’.
Encroaching local government
The reality is that as a result of the relentless pressure of advocates, not only is the bicultural Treaty partnership agenda now entrenched right across the public sector, it is also well advanced in local government.
In education, a commitment to biculturalism and ‘cultural competency’ is about to become mandatory for the country’s early childhood, primary and secondary school teachers, through a new code of conduct proposed by the Education Council that is due to come into force on July 1, 2017. This will ensure the bicultural indoctrination of the next generation.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator is Professor Barend Vlaardingerbroek of the American University of Beirut – an Otago University graduate, who has examined this development and is appalled:
“Existing Practising Teachers Criteria standards include ‘demonstrate commitment to bicultural partnership in Aotearoa New Zealand’ and ‘work effectively within the bicultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand’. These standards clearly target the political domain, for biculturalism is an overtly power-sharing paradigm (and thereby a political maxim), unlike multiculturalism which is more of a social ideology. Demonstrating a commitment to a bicultural partnership forces on teachers a particular political model arising from a particular interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.
“On July 1, this requirement is being beefed up to ‘Demonstrate a commitment to a bicultural Aotearoa New Zealand’. Passive acquiescence won’t do any more: teachers must now be personally committed to this political paradigm. Where my alarm bells were ringing before, they’re now shrieking. 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. It’s the imposition of a political ideology, pure and simple.”
Professor Vlaardingerbroek observes that “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. And that is enforced ideological conformity – the antithesis of democracy and an infringement of teachers internationally acknowledged human rights.”
Bill of Rights
The rights of every citizen to hold and express their personal views free from State oppression are enshrined in New Zealand’s Bill of Rights. Section 13 guarantees the freedom of thought: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.”
And Section 14 protects free speech: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
Despite those safeguards, the Education Council’s new Code will restrict a teacher’s right to adopt and “hold opinions without interference” from the state and to “seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”. Anyone who dares to speak their mind and say, “No, I do not share those beliefs” will no doubt be sanctioned or bullied into compliance through the fear that they will lose their job or be ostracised in the workplace.
So, what exactly does the Government intend to do about it? Will they order the new Code to be withdrawn, or will their desire to appease the Maori Party – so they can hold onto power after the election – over-ride their duty to do what’s right for the nation’s teachers?
Impact on Education
If National allows the Code to go ahead, they will be requiring teachers to instill into children the radical anti-government agenda of the bicultural movement.
Canterbury University is also in the throes of introducing a bicultural ‘world-view’ and cultural competency – in their case, through a “memorandum of understanding” with Ngai Tahu, which will require every graduating student to be “biculturally competent” by 2020.
Bicultural radicalism first invaded the health sector back in the nineties in the form of ‘cultural safety’ requirements for nurses. One student, Anna Penn, who had the courage to speak out in those early days, against the politically correct agenda that was being imposed on them, faced such antagonism that she ended up having to complete her nursing degree in Australia. At the time, many students felt intimidated by cultural safety courses and complained that the repressive climate prevented them from questioning the content.
Doctors have now become the new target for ‘cultural competence’ indoctrination, through a just-announced partnership with Maori: “Improving cultural competence and creating culturally safe environments for both patients and doctors is the aim of a new joint project between the Medical Council of New Zealand and the Maori Medical Practitioners Association.”
Social workers too are forced to sign up to a Code of Practice which requires that they work in ‘partnership’ with Maori clients as ‘tangata whenua’, using ‘bicultural’ practice models.
Our sovereignty challenged
Looking at it all objectively, it defies logic that state sector employees are being forced to subscribe to a radical race-based political agenda that challenges the sovereignty of the Crown.
The reality is that biculturalism has no authority in law. It is a political movement that is being driven by a small minority of New Zealanders with aspirations of grandeur, who seek to replace Democracy with race-based rule.
As such, biculturalism is divisive, dangerous, and backwards looking. It is time our political leaders stepped up and called for its removal from all State agencies.
Dr Muriel Newman is Director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a web-based free weekly Newsletter, NZCPR Weekly. The above article, which appeared in her weekly edition dated June 4, 2017 has been reproduced here with her permission.