Brash mis-reported again

An email arrived yesterday saying: I gave a speech this evening to the Orewa branch of the National Party.  Because the electorate chair had made it clear that it was open to the media, several journalists now have copies of it, so I am sending it to a wider group of friends so that you know what I actually said, not just what the media say I said!

It came from Don Brash and when I read the Herald on Sunday this morning I can see why he did that.

The headline says: Brash attacks Maori again.

The intro says:

Former National leader Don Brash attacked Maori in a provocative speech to party faithful at Orewa last night – returning to the issues that propelled him to the leadership six years ago.

Titled Return to Orewa, Brash said Maori have no special rights and there was no grounds for a separate Maori political party.

Further down he is quoted directly:

“The whole concept of a racially based political party would be seen as grossly inappropriate if wanted by any other race than Maori,” he said. “What would be the reaction if a group of New Zealanders of European background decided to set up a ‘European New Zealanders’ Party’?

“There would be outcry, and rightly so.”

Brash said general legislation, such as the Resource Management Act, which requires local councils to consult their communities and Maori separately, should be “insulting” and “patronising” to Maori people.

“The Maori electorates were established for a five-year period in 1867. There is no logic for them at all 143 years later.”

The headline and intro are opinion which in my view misconstrue what he said and the story does not give context to his remarks with this:

National campaigned in at least the last three elections on the principle that all New Zealanders are equal before the law. That principle was enshrined in Article III of the Treaty of Waitangi, which guaranteed that all New Zealanders would have the rights and privileges of British subjects.

Let me say to avoid the slightest ambiguity that I have always supported the Treaty settlement process. I still do. There were clearly gross injustices committed historically, and where those can be established beyond reasonable doubt, compensation should be paid to the descendants of those affected. One can debate how big those settlements should be, but I don’t think any fair person can object to the principle of compensation, provided of course that it is both fair and final.

But there is absolutely no case that I can see for treating Maori people differently in general legislation, as is done for example in the Resource Management Act, which enjoins local councils to consult with their communities and with Maori. If I were Maori, I would find that grossly insulting language, patronizing, and implying as it does that Maori are not part of the community.

Nor are there any grounds for separate Maori political representation, in Parliament or anywhere else. The Maori electorates were established for a five year period in 1867. There is no logic for them at all 143 years later. Maori are absolutely capable of being elected to Parliament on their own merits, and when I was in Parliament there were 21 Members of Parliament with Maori ancestry, only seven of them elected in the separate Maori electorates.

 And of course, the same principle applies to local government. Here in Auckland at the recent election, and without any special legislation, Maori achieved the proportion of elected representatives on the new Council that their numbers warrant.

You can agree of not with what he said but those views are not an attack on Maori.

He is not suggesting they have fewer rights than any other New Zealanders, he is criticising legislation which gives them more.

A European, or any other racially based party would be seen as grossly inappropriate.

It could be seen as insulting and patronising that Maori have to be consulted separately because it suggests they don’t have the same rights and abilities as anyone else.

The Maori seats were established for a five-year period more than 100 years ago, there is no longer any logic for them and the Commission which designed MMP recommended that they went when MMP was introduced.

Like Don I support the settlement of past grievances. Some appalling things were done in the past and while individually no-one today is responsible for that, as a country we do have a responsibility to make amends and pay compensation.

The Maori culture must be respected and protected – if we don’t do it here it won’t be done anywhere else.

The the over representation of Maori in negative statistics and under representation in positive ones must be addressed.

It would be racist to say Maori are not New Zealanders or treat them as anything but New Zealanders. It is racist to treat any group of New Zealanders as anything other than New Zealanders.

Regardless of what happened in the past and any problems there are now, we have to be very, very careful about treating any group as special or different. Special  or different for supposedly positive reasons can very easily become special and different for negative ones.

10 Responses to Brash mis-reported again

  1. Cadwallader says:

    I agree with Don Brash and the comment that Maori culture ought be protected, but it is for Maori to do so. It is not a governmental task to do so.


  2. robertguyton says:

    Hilarity from Brash:
    “Brash said general legislation, such as the Resource Management Act, which requires local councils to consult their communities and Maori separately, should be “insulting” and “patronising” to Maori people.”

    Do Maori feel patronised and insulted by the requirement I wonder?
    I doubt it very much.
    You say Ele:
    “It could be seen as insulting and patronising that Maori have to be consulted separately because it suggests they don’t have the same rights and abilities as anyone else.”

    but mistakenly believe that the provisions exist because Maori don’t have the same ‘abilities’.
    Those provisions are recognition that Maori occupy a special position in New Zealand, as agreed upon at the signing of the Treaty and that they are operating from a disadvantaged position as the result of subsequent developments.
    Those provisions restore some fairness to the system.
    Brash can’t see it either and I’m not at all surprised.


  3. Cadwallader says:

    Robert: It is your exclusive choice to blight your life with a foundationless guilt-trip. I wonder what “…operating from a disadvantaged position as the result of subsequent developments,” actually means? Two questions: What truly is the “disadvantaged position?” And: What are the “subsequent developments?”


  4. robertguyton says:

    Cad – let’s see.. hypothetically, an indigenous population that all but dies out due to disease introduced by colonisers would be ‘in a disadvantaged position’, would you not agree?
    ‘Subsequent developments’ might cover their enslavement by those colonisers, to further my hypothetical model. I’ve used this model to show you how this could be the case.
    As to my blighted life, I’m ‘Key-relaxed’ about that.


  5. Cadwallader says:

    “Disease introduced by colonisers” and “enslavement” are more based in hysterics than history. It is the perpetuated claims of disadvantage (now over 150 years) that paint illusions of colour of right which trigger certain parties to barge into private property demanding more or less anything from the owners based on race. Northland today is subject to this absurdity this very day.

    Every race and nationality has been subjected to things which may or may not have disadvantaged them, but to perpetuate victimhood indefinitely is unfair to both parties. Your perceptions of maori disadvantage may make you feel saintly but does it actually address race relations in NZ?


  6. robertguyton says:

    I feel saintly Cad? Your powers of perception astonish me!
    You’ll not agree then, that the foreshore and sea bed was never bought from Maori. If not, you’ll be able to point to where that did happen?


  7. gravedodger says:

    “Diseases introduced by the Colonisers”, Very emotive, selective and rather doubtful as to accuracy. Plenty of “sealers’, “gold miners” and “whalers” with absolutely nil connection to those who “colonised” New Zealand as they came, shagged and or married native women, then departed leaving TB, Typhus, influenza, syphilus and what else. By the time what some call colonisation occurred there were plenty of problems among the native population medically speaking.
    As to enslavement, My learning tells me that enslavement was a particularly central part of inter- tribal warfare along with cannibalism, and slaughter of all males of a defeated enemy that those nasty colonisers took the trouble to try to eliminate from the culture of the Maori.
    There were plenty of pluses from the arrival of the colonisers that have benefited the natives some of whose dominant male ancestors signed the treaty and all the other maori citizens who had a rather dominated position among their people, politically speaking.
    I nearly overlooked how the nasty colonisers forced the Maori to abuse drugs, alcohol, each other and strangers, kill and maim their children especially their defenseless babies, to steal, to sit on their bums as welfare is a preferable lifestyle without the inconvenience of wasting valuable time going to work and earning their income.

    I agree with Dr Brash’s suggestions and the sooner more “Maori” exit the victimhood syndrome as many who have departed to Australia and the rest of the world have done, but many of the so called leadership of Maori are happy to perpetrate as a basis of political power,the better for all of us, particularly the so called Tangata whenua.


  8. robertguyton says:

    Meh! You guys seem not to understand the meaning of the word ‘hypothetical’ and have instead launched into (what I’m guessing are) your well-practised diatribes.

    Ele says: “It would be racist to say Maori are not New Zealanders or treat them as anything but New Zealanders.”

    Would it be racist to say that Maori are .. Maori and treat them as such?


  9. jon says:

    You don’t understand the meaning of the word racist.
    It is racist to treat anyone differently just because of their race. It’s that simple.
    We have people in NZ walking around thinking they are mana whenua which effectively means special because of their race and I guess you can see nothing wrong with that. (Hitler saw nothing wrong with that either)
    A fruitcake from your own party wants non-maori NZers to be classed as resident aliens, another amusing parallel with 1930’s Germany.
    You are evil.


  10. robertguyton says:

    jon – you can’t be mana whenua, it’s something you have. Well, not you, but others.
    Your Hitler reference excludes you from further debate however, so it no cigar.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: