Only fifty years ago NZ was a democratic country where we had pretty much learned to live as a multi-cultural country where everyone regardless of race, colour or creed, had the rights that were applicable to citizens of NZ.
We had just begun to acknowledge that there were grievances around the actions of some of our predecessors and we were starting to take action to settle these grievances through the use of what was known as the Waitangi Tribunal.
The Waitangi Tribunal was set up to hear claims related to issues around the Treaty of Waitangi and also the actions of the early European settlers to NZ.
What began as a well-meaning effort to settle all such claims and offer an apology to those affected has since that time developed into nothing more than an industry that is focussed on claimants’ getting every last cent they are able to extract from the Crown (read taxpayers of NZ) for any and everything they can possibly dream up to make a claim in relation to.
The Tribunal was originally about redress in relation to the actions of our first European settlers but has now ended up as a vehicle which is used to try to claim as much financial reward as possible and to give absolute power to a very small section of our population.
It has become a tool used to side-line democracy and to force the total population to accept that there is some unchallengeable right for Maori through their use of “Te Reo & Tikanga”, to have a right of veto (or power) over all other races which call NZ home.
We now have what is a very small number of self-appointed so-called elite Iwi who are trying by any and every means at their disposal, to assert some sort of moral superiority over the rest of the NZ population and to try to gain power of control.
We are constantly being told that the Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between the Crown and Maori and to fulfil this we need to adopt a system of Co-Governance with Maori.
The idea being that Maori will have fifty percent of control and all other races will have the other fifty percent.
This whole idea of Co-Governance is nothing more than a racist attempt to gain control based on an erroneous interpretation of the Treaty.
Apartheid by another name!
Co-governance is not about the Treaty it is solely about control and getting the monetary benefits that go with having control. It’s about a small percentage of the population (approximately 17%) getting fifty percent of control based on their ethnicity and the others (approximately 83%) getting the rest.
We are told repeatedly by the so-called elite from Iwi that this is the only way forward to honour the Treaty. But in fact this is nothing more than moving from the democratic system of government we have had since the signing of the Treaty to a system of racial discrimination where equality in government has no place as it will be replaced by a person’s ethnicity.
This push for Co-Governance has got nothing to do with honouring the Treaty; it is all about gaining control and getting snouts in the trough of public funding.
We have given Iwi billions of dollars in Treaty settlements as reparations for past actions of our ancestors and whilst I have no complaint about the payments I truly believe that it is time the gravy train that is known as the Waitangi Tribunal was ended.
What we have now is a system of ideological indoctrination which is cloaked in cultural empathy, enforced by social shame, and hidden behind a virtue signalling sea of Maori culture with our public servants scrambling to prove their cultural credentials and enforcing a cultural ideology across every aspect of national life rather than concentrating on delivering basic services.
The so-called elite have used Maori culture and Te Ao Maori (the Maori world view) to assert their claims for some type of right under the Treaty of Waitangi, to be given the right of co-governance, when in actual fact there is no basis in truth for this assertion.
You’re not allowed to question it. You’re not allowed to ask for clarity. If you do, you’re dismissed as backward, racist, colonial; a problem to be fixed or, preferably, ignored.
When the Maori signed the Treaty in 1840 they ceded sovereignty to the Crown. Yet this is now disputed by the small band of radicals that are pushing for Co-Governance, but the facts are that their own people have many times stated that sovereignty was ceded by the signing of the Treaty.
There has been some debate over the years about what, exactly; Maori believed they were signing in 1840 and whether Maori did cede sovereignty to the British Crown when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi or, as is now contended by some, did they not?
The acclaimed Maori Leader; Sir Apirana Ngata- M.A. LLB. LIT.D in his book, the "Treaty of Waitangi” prepared an English translation of the Treaty in 1922 that argued that the Chiefs had “cede (d) absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all their lands”.
He concluded with the words:
"The Treaty made the one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful".
In addition to this, the standard translation used by the Waitangi tribunal in the early 1990’s was made by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu. Here is his full translation of the Treaty:
“The first: The chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.
“The second: The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.
“The third: For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.”
Sir Hugh and the Tribunal in this time were in no doubt that the chiefs had ceded sovereignty to the Queen.
The so-called elite Maori have recently tried to dispute this, but after 170 plus years of acceptance this would seem to be a futile attempt to change history, or even deliberate trouble-making, in trying after all these years to upset what has been accepted by both Maori and others for so long.
If ever there was a declaration that we are one people and that Maori have the same rights and duties of citizenship, surely it is Sir Hugh’s translation of the Treaty’s third clause?
In any event, Sir Hugh’s translation of Article 3 surely rules out any special relationship/privilege for Maori or for their modern descendants over non-Maori. And since there was no such thing as a properly functioning democracy either in England or in New Zealand in 1840, the question of “political rights” wasn’t an issue at the time. Are some people just trying to re-write the Treaty to suit their current agendas?
We’ve now got “Maori seats,” “Maori wards,” “iwi consultation panels,” etc. and in many areas you can’t take any actions until they have been checked and signed off by the local Iwi to ensure it will not offend some spiritual value that they may hold.
We also have many local bodies signing off on co-governance agreements as if they are making some magical step towards implementing Treaty requirements when in actual fact all they are really achieving is to introduce a race based bureaucracy which is nothing more than turning democracy into Apartheid under the name of Co-Governance.
And it doesn’t stop there; we’ve seen public health campaigns and education & science institutions redefining the very concept of knowledge to include Maori spiritual ideology. We’ve seen schoolchildren, most of whom aren’t Maori, and many whose families have different religious beliefs, forced to participate in spiritual ideology (karakia) multiple times a day as if they’re attending a religious school, not a secular public school.
By elevating Maori spiritual Ideology to sacred, unchallengeable status, above science, above secularism, above democratic consensus might make it feel good for those public servants to sing and speak in te reo, but it does nothing to ensure the provision of effective public services to either Maori nor non-Maori.
The Maorification of our public service bureaucracy is not about creating a shared heritage and a unifying shared modern culture, it’s solely about domination of the national direction, and with it comes a cultural outlook that most of us never consented to and get punished if we try to resist.
If we try to push back, we’re dismissed, branded as bigots, called colonisers and in many cases accused of being white supremacists, no matter our actual ethnicity, background, or intent.
Public servants probably don’t think twice about participating in spiritual ideological processes when interacting with Maori communities and iwi but when they have to attend multiple meetings on a daily basis and in each of these meetings at least the first ten minutes (but usually longer) is dedicated to spiritual ideological processes, how much time are they wasting at the taxpayers expense.
Figuring out how much taxpayer-funded time is used in sitting through these processes is not easy given that we don’t know how many meetings each public servant has to attend where these ideological processes are performed, but we can say that in the current climate where it is almost mandatory that all meetings be started with a karakia, it is a very large amount.
If we use the conservative estimate of five minutes per meeting and say that each public servant will attend at least two meetings per week and there are over 63,000 public servants that is 315,000 minutes each week. Five thousand two hundred and fifty hours each week.
This just goes to show how the Maorification of the bureaucratic processes has created a huge waste of taxpayer’s money without doing anything to ensure the provision of effective public services. And that’s the real problem.
We’ve got to the situation where before every meeting and with every government policy we are expected to enforce allegiance to a cultural identity which has almost become a fight for the right of control, where people don’t see the threat that this poses to our national identity and our system of democratic government.
We now have the situation where our educational system is being re-engineered to further the aims of the grievance industry through revision of the history curriculum and the teaching of that revised history in relation to Maori settlement of NZ.
Colonisation is being blamed for the lack of achievement in the educational system by Maori and there have been claims made that we need to decolonise the education system in New Zealand to allow Maori to have an equal chance of achievement with other races.
I say that in my honest opinion this claim is far from correct.
My reason for saying this is supported by looking at the example of the Maori full immersion schools and their rates of success.
They are achieving great results.
Are these a result of decolonising the education system? NO!
The results are due to the support from people working within those systems and from within the families of the students. The results come from hard work by all involved.
Yes they may be ably assisted by the full immersion systems but at the end of it all the main reason for their success is down to the commitment and effort of all those involved and they should be commended for those efforts.
The opposite is seen when we look at the lack of achievement from those in the normal state school systems, and we see that most of the students failing miserably in those systems are lacking in support from their own families.
So from these two examples we can rightfully say that the full immersion schools do work but in my opinion the main reason they work is down to the commitment and efforts put in by all those involved not just due to decolonisation.
The problem is that any challenge to the so-called decolonisation ideology is immediately labelled racist and this is deepening the social divide in our country.
In 1989 the fourth Labour government changed the education administration systems and introduced a Board of Trustees for each individual school and included in the Education Act, Section 16 headed Cultural diversity, Treaty of Waitangi, tikanga Maori and te reo Maori.
Up till 1989 there was no reference to any legislative relationship between New Zealand education and the Treaty of Waitangi in the prevailing Education Act. The Treaty was taught as part of the history curriculum.
In those times past, a school board was required to take all reasonable steps to provide instruction in tikanga and te reo for fulltime students whose parents asked for it.
But the Labour government, in 2020 introduced much stronger language regarding the Treaty, tikanga, matauranga Maori, te ao Maori, te reo, and the requirements under each.
Section 127 of the 2020 Act set out the primary objectives for school boards and, understandably the first objective was that every student must able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement.
Then the Act stipulates that the school;
“gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including by working to ensure that (i) its plans, policies, and local curriculum reflect local tikanga Maori, matauranga Maori, and te ao Maori; and (ii) taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Maori and te reo Maori; and (iii) achieving equitable outcomes for Maori students.”
Earlier, Section 5 of the Act stated that among the education objectives are the need
“to instil, in each child and young person, an appreciation of the importance of the inclusion of different groups and persons with different personal characteristics, diversity, cultural knowledge, identity, and the different official languages and Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te reo Maori.”
The current Coalition government is now deliberating on the Education and Training Amendment Bill No 2.
Under this Bill the new Section 127 has some changes to the language of the 2020 Act which actually go further than the current Act on the matter of teaching matters Maori.
The Amendment Bill states that a school board’s paramount objective is that every student is able to attain their highest possible standard.
But the Bill then goes on the state that to meet the paramount objective, a board must meet supporting objectives.
Among those supporting objectives, which a school is compelled to meet, is that it must give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi by achieving equitable outcomes for Maori students, ensure that its learning programmes reflect local tikanga, matauranga Maori and te ao Maori and that reasonable steps are taken to ensure instruction is available in te reo Maori.
By legislating that a school must ensure its learning programmes “reflect local tikanga, matauranga Maori and te ao Maori” this Amendment Bill is breaking with the longstanding principle of secular education.
Since the passing of the Education Act of 1877, educational instruction in New Zealand state schools has been free and secular; meaning all education was funded by the taxpayers of NZ and free from religious and spiritual instruction unless parents agreed otherwise.
Matauranga Maori is a belief of the interconnectedness of all things, both tangible and intangible, including the spiritual and metaphysical and as such it is surely outside the realm of secularism and nothing more than religious belief.
Given that it is nothing more than a system of religious beliefs, the compulsory supporting objective (of give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi by achieving equitable outcomes for Maori students, ensure that its learning programmes reflect local tikanga, matauranga Maori and te ao Maori and that reasonable steps are taken to ensure instruction is available in te reo Maori) to the paramount objective should not exist in the Amendment Bill.
This is effectively just an entrenchment of the teaching of Maori knowledge, of the so-called holistic worldview that focuses on customary Maori values and lore.
When the Minister of Education was asked about the requirements under section 127 in the Bill she made the following statements regarding those who were opposed to the Bill:
“They are whipped up with hatred and lies ... They are yelling at the sky. Frothing at the mouth with hatred. It’s utter rubbish.”
That may well be her opinion but to my mind I firmly believe that the wording which makes it compulsory for school boards to meet the supporting objective that:
it must give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi by achieving equitable outcomes for Maori students, ensure that its learning programmes reflect local tikanga, matauranga Maori and te ao Maori and that reasonable steps are taken to ensure instruction is available in te reo Maori
Is not only wrong but in effect is nothing more than a system of Apartheid based on an erroneous interpretation of the Treaty.
The Minister can complain all that she likes about the opposition being whipped up by hatred and lies and talking utter rubbish, but with the inclusion of the compulsion to meet the “Paramount Objective” under section 127 of the Education and Training Amendment Bill No 2 and the supporting objectives, it shows that she is either being disingenuous and trying to mislead the public or she doesn’t really understand the content of the Bill.
I leave you to make up your own mind as to which is the truth.
Furthermore on the subject of education, International students at Auckland University are being charged up to $5,730 for a compulsory Treaty of Waitangi course.
The course, part of the university’s new ‘Waipapa Taumata Rau’ (WTR) curriculum, is mandatory for all first-year undergraduates and covers particular views on Maori knowledge systems, history, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This course requirement is damaging the university’s reputation, discouraging international enrolment and may provide some insight into why Auckland University is slipping down the international rankings.
“A student who speaks English as a second language and only plans to stay in New Zealand for their degree gains no practical benefit from being forced to study local indigenous belief systems,” she said.
The course has been described as a “perversion of academic freedom” and “indoctrination,” criticising its faculty-wide mandate.
Professors are usually free to criticise course material, but this is different—it’s being imposed for political rather than educational purposes.
There is growing concerns among students with many now considering going to overseas universities where they are not required to pay exorbitant fees for course which are irrelevant to their overall qualifications.
Auckland University has defended the programme, stating that it helps students “transition into university” and that its content is relevant globally.
Prior to the effects of the Covid 19 lockdowns the international student market provided approximately $8billion income into NZ and now with the after effects and decisions such as this course compulsion with associated exorbitant fees, this income has dropped by over $2billion, and looks like it will drop even further.
By discriminating against people on the basis of race, gender or sexuality, it dangerously undermines New Zealanders’ right to equality before the law.
But there can be no mature discussion about our future as a country until everybody accepts that the Treaty provided for the government to have final authority, with all citizens - no matter their ancestry - having equal rights.
We must stop being afraid to say it. This is not just wrong. It is corrosive. A separatist political model based on racial ancestry belongs in 19th-century South Africa, not 21st-century New Zealand.
.svg){kind=logo}
By Andy Loader, Poke the Bear