Did you see the one about . . . ?

Will New Zealand’s liberal democracy survive – Peter Winsley :

New Zealand’s democracy based on equal voting rights is changing with different rights assigned at birth, based on whether you have Māori blood or not.  New Māori-only rights exist or are being put in place in the environmental, resource management, education, health, science, local government, and other sectors.  Resources are therefore allocated based on race rather than on need

Race-based rights are increasingly enabled in legislation, promoted by Labour Government politicians, academics, public servants in key positions, and supported by most mainstream media.  Opposing voices are silenced through publication bans, disruption of meetings, threats to careers, and Orwellian racism accusations.

A strategy to weaken New Zealand’s democracy involves attacking its foundations. These are the electoral system itself, Parliamentary processes, the education system, the science system, and the rule of law.  The Labour Government has progressed fundamental constitutional reforms in secret, for example the He Puapua report (Charters et al 2019).  It assured the public this work was on hold even while it was still energetically progressing it.  This suggests contempt for open government and meaningful consultative processes.

Scrutiny of legislation– one of Parliament’s core roles – has at times been derisory.  For example, on 28 August 2023 the Government proceeded with the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Bill.  This establishes a new category of electors, named ‘youth electors’, and makes way for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to be registered on a youth electoral roll to vote in council elections.  It was given only a few seconds of time for the title to be read out in Parliament and the Bill tabled!

The compulsory school history curriculum teaches a partial view of New Zealand history.  Colonisation is demonised almost exclusively, despite its many benefits.  New Zealand’s achievement as one of the most socially progressive and economically successful small democracies is not celebrated.  The New Zealand Wars are covered, however the most violent chapter in our history – the Musket Wars from about 1807 to 1838 is largely ignored.

The inclusion of  mātauranga  Māori (Māori “ways of knowing”) in the school science curriculum, and giving it equal status with international science, will weaken our science education and turn many students off science.  Significant science research funding is now based on whether researchers have Māori ancestry and/or have committed to mātauranga Māori”.  These “ways of knowing” (or rather believing) may have little scientific content that would be recognised internationally.  As a result, New Zealand science has become subject to sceptical international scrutiny and some ridicule.  Some of New Zealand’s greatest scientists and technologists such as Garth Cooper and Ross Ihaka are Māori.  Had they studied mātauranga Māori rather than international science, New Zealand and the world would be much the poorer.

Much of the race-related debate has focused on “co-governance”, which is not well defined.  Co-governance can encourage subsidiarity – that is delegating decision rights to those closer to the action and to where the results fall.  For example, a “wrap around” whanau ora initiative can see effective service delivery through co-governance involving government agencies and iwi.  However, co-governance can also involve parallel government and legal systems and separate institutions that divide the community. 

Co-governance in the Water Services Entities Act 2022 and the Water Services Amendment Bills, and in the Natural and Built Environment 2023 are racialist.  In the Water Services legislation, the governance system and a requirement to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai statementsgive iwi and hapū effective control over New Zealand’s water resources.

The Natural and Built Environment Act includes regional planning committees with Māori members appointed by iwi and hapū groups, a National Māori Entity, and requirements for anyone exercising powers, functions, or duties under the Act to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti (despite the fact that there are no principles in te Tiriti.)

Laws are rules which must be obeyed by all, and the law binds the Crown.  

In New Zealand the Fitzgerald v Muldoon case in 1976 saw a junior public servant (Paul Fitzgerald) challenge the legality of Prime Minister Robert Muldoon abolishing a superannuation scheme put in place by the previous Labour Government.  Fitzgerald’s challenge was upheld by the judgment of Chief Justice Sir Richard Wild.  The law bound the Crown and the rule of law prevailed.  However, in July 2023 the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) abolished its Rule of Law Committee.  This suggests that the rule of law will in time be weakened.

One form of attack on our democracy is to effectively call the New Zealand government or even the nation unlawful or illegitimate. 

The Waitangi Tribunal’s 2014 report into the first stage of its WAI 1040 northern Māori inquiry claimed that Māori did not cede sovereignty: “We have concluded that in February 1840 the rangatira who signed te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty.  Rather, they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor.”  This “big lie” that never dies despite overwhelming evidence against it, raises serious consequences.  It gifts a moral licence to any criminal to argue that they broke no legitimate law.   In extremis, it may spark or psychologically enable “sovereign citizen” movements, white supremacists, far-right Māori nationalists and entitled tribalists.

In a 2019 paper “The elephant in the courtroom: An Essay on the Judiciary’s Silence on the Legitimacy of the New Zealand State” Dr Claire Charters accused the judiciary of “silently upholding the myth of the legitimacy of the state”.  

I stress that Claire Charters is intelligent, multi-lingual and malice-free – she is not one of what Helen Clark termed the “haters and wreckers” within Māoridom.  I’m sure that Dr Charters is aware that very few countries would put up with their judiciaries challenging the state’s right to exist!  

Taking a more oblique line, Dr Charters has argued that court recognition of tikanga implicitly signals that Crown sovereignty is not absolute.  However, since Magna Carta and the development of English common law Crown sovereignty has never been absolute. 

In pre-European times, warring Māori tribes owed obligations not to a state and its laws but to kinship and custom (tikanga).  However, without a written language, Māori customs and social rules could not be formalized as written statutes or common law.  Tikanga disappeared when it lost relevance or acceptability – cannibalism is an example.  Some other tikanga such as rahui retain wide support, though may be difficult to enforce.  Much tikanga is limited to traditional Māori cultural settings.

In a 2017 paper titled ‘Use It or Lose It: The Value of Using the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Māori Political and Legal Claims’ Dr Charters argues: 

“The value of using international norms as a means to increase their compliance pull on states over time, even when they may be resistant to the norms or the norms are not binding, is supported by theories on constructivism, transnational legal process theory and social movement theory. At heart, these theories share the proposition that there are methods to embed norms in the domestic and legal landscape in such a way that states view conformity with them as ordinary and rationally-appropriate behaviour or, conversely, contravention as politically and legally illegitimate.

This sounds noble.  However it could be interpreted as a strategy to advance elite interests in a roundabout way.  This paper was published in 2017 and foreshadows the He Puapua report two years later. 

The thinking in He Puapua hearkens back to the times of aristocratic tribal elitism in Europe and in New Zealand.  It brings to mind the work of Carl Schmitt in Germany who undermined the Weimar Republic and made possible its overthrow.  He Puapua has within it some traces of fascist thinking.

What New Zealand needs is whakakotahitanga (unity) on such core principles as equal citizenship rights and the rule of law, while fostering the diversity that comes from multi-culturalism and individualism.  This unity amidst diversity has socio-economic and equity implications.  Without productivity growth there is neither prosperity nor social mobility, and without these our democratic foundations become shaky and perhaps the state’s legitimacy will continue to be questioned. 

New Zealanders will not over the long term accept being assigned to racial categories with different rights fixed at birth.  You can already see this in the reaction to race-based surgical prioritisation, and to the burning of huts in what was once an iconic Urewera National Park that belonged to all, not to the Crown or a tribe. 

It is within our power to strengthen democracy while becoming a higher productivity and more equitable economy.  After all, te Tiriti is colour-blind and the Crown commits to equal rights for all New Zealanders: – “nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani.”

Perhaps some spindrift could be gathered from He Puapua’s breaking wave and be shaped into something unifying in the spirit of whakakotahitanga and of Leucothea (the Greek goddess of spindrift).  Maybe a team of Claire Charters, David Seymour, Chris Trotter and a hard-headed economist such as Bryce Wilkinson might be charged with this most difficult and most valuable task?

The Māori electorates – Perce Harpham

. . .The Maori seats were intended to last for only five years and in that time the law was changed to allow all males to vote. So the reasons for the Maori seats disappeared, but the seats did not. Instead more have been created so that there are now seven Maori seats. This has given Maori political power way beyond anything that could be achieved with financial donations. No amount of money to fund a political party in its electoral campaign can guarantee a single seat, but the Maori hierarchy can essentially dictate how those seats can be decided.

When the “First Past the Post” electoral system was replaced by the present “Mixed Member” system, the Commission of Inquiry which designed the latter proposed the abolition of the Maori seats, as MMP would allow minorities to obtain seats. But they were not abolished. Clearly neither of the major parties were prepared to risk losing the next election by taking that step.

Non-Maori cannot vote for the Maori seats but Maori can choose to go on the electoral roll for Maori seats and vote for them. They can also choose to be on the general roll and to vote for non-Maori seats. The Mongrel Mob have reportedly directed their members to go on the general roll and to vote in an electorate which is marginal for Labour. There is, of course, a requirement to have an address in that electorate but this is unlikely to be problem for Mongrel Mob members.

There are now 25 MPs who identify as Maori. So 18 have either been elected on the general roll or on a party list. The latter number, interestingly enough, is precisely the number required to represent the proportion of Maori in the population. Accordingly there is no justification for the Maori seats.

Many questionable ideas have resulted from the power of the block of Maori seats. Without that power would any sane politician believe that Queen Victoria went into partnership with 500 Maori chiefs on the other side of the world? Or that they would think that they were in partnership with one another?

To secure Maori votes, political parties have increasingly accepted claims that the problems disclosed by various statistics are the result of systemic bias against them and that the Treaty means different things from what it says.

My book, The Corruption of New Zealand, supports the well-reasoned view of the Auckland University professor of education, Elizabeth Rata, that the tribal vision is wrong and that the problems are a matter of class, not race. Thus, for example, the reason for 50% of the prison population being Maori is likely to be that 50% of the poor in New Zealand are Maori and the solution is to apply the explicit Treaty provision for all the people of New Zealand to be under the same laws. Changes for the benefit of all the poor are needed.

The Labour Government commissioned a report on the Maori vision for objectives in 2040. The report was kept secret until it was leaked. With great speed the Labour Government is now changing systems and laws in conformance with that vision. The Government has rejected the established system of “one law for all” to give overarching power to Maori through a tribal system with different laws for Maori. Jacinda Ardern as prime minister said only that there will be no separate Parliament. But the country is being separated on Tribal lines.

There is a pattern of events and vested interest moves that have corrupted our democracy and our history to promote a drift back to tribalism. The treaty was actually about the end of tribalism. It ended the warring of groups among the 500 iwi by unifying them and their constituents as equals with non-iwi under one rule. This is being turned on its head with a return to tribalism and a squeezing out of anyone not affiliated with one of the tribes.

If we do not rapidly undo much of what has been done, and is proposed, then our democracy will be crippled, or perish entirely, and our legal system will become largely impotent and inoperable. There is also a danger that we will develop racial intolerance at a level which we have never known.

As a nation we have been proud of laws which made no mention of ethnic divisions. But, suddenly, people of Maori descent are being given different legal rights from all other races.

Unless actions which have been taken, or are in progress, are reversed there is no point in worrying about ideas for reducing inequality and preserving our democracy. Instead we will have a tribally based legal system where power is held by unelected hereditary Maori leaders. A necessary first step to avert disaster is to abolish the Maori seats. 

The view from abroad and harsh realities – Michael Bassett :

. . .  Seventy years ago, our country enjoyed a standard of living the equal of Canada and the US. In those days everything looked promising, and was. But we have now fallen way behind, and it’s distressingly obvious. Our public facilities, like airports, are inadequate. Roads have badly filled potholes, while contractors seem unable to construct anything on time, or within budget. In the main streets of Auckland and Wellington lots of shops are closed because there are no longer many shoppers in town. Rough sleepers curl up in doorways; recently I saw a man in Queen Street, Auckland’s main street, piddling against a shop front at 11am on a weekday. Only the foolhardy go into the city at night where there have been several murders in recent months.

New Zealand was once viewed as a land of achievements and opportunities. Overseas, our country still enjoys a bit of a reputation for cleanliness and its scenic attractions. But the reality is that today it has a downright dowdy appearance; it’s a bit like trying to stage a gala performance in your gardening clothes. Worse, we can no longer communicate properly with each other as radio and TV journalists spout off in made-up words straight out of the Maori Language Commission. And it’s all being done, they tell us, to preserve the Maori language. Pull the other one! English, the world’s premier language and an international sign of quality in other countries, is no longer good enough for them. Not only has our way of life languished in recent years, but there is every sign that nobody in authority cares any more. Cabinet ministers openly rubbish the fundamental underpinning of democracy: one person-one vote. Our self-styled “Labour” government regards separating our society by race as desirable, even noble. This week’s Vivamagazine in the New Zealand Herald is full of Pakeha women with a drop of Maori ancestry posing in what they purport to be Maori-style wear. Elsewhere, over recent years, the crime stories in the paper feature the less creditable side of Maori society. These days few in authority see any virtue in the cultures of the other 83% of our population. We are well on the way down a slippery slope.

To be fair, Canada and the United States are also experiencing a minor craze for “first nations”. So is Australia. But not to the extent of wholesale rubbishing of their countries’ other cultures. So far as I could see, there were few signs elsewhere that the courts were actively inventing rules that should govern the operation of our democracy as several rulings from our Supreme Court appear to be doing. What a pile of nonsense judges produced to justify votes for sixteen-year-olds! If ever there was an issue that should be left to the politicians who make the laws, that was one. The almost daily rulings by our Independent Police Conduct Authority seem determined to undermine Police operations and to boost expectations from the underworld that they’ll be able to get off scot-free for their criminal conduct.

Not all New Zealand’s relative backwardness can be blamed on the Ardern-Hipkins governments. John Key’s government failed to take the steps promised to lift New Zealand’s standard of living to the equal of Australia’s, even when a template for doing so was provided by a highly respectable committee of experts. And intellectual laziness let him sign us up to the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights when we have no indigenous people, thus causing many of the ructions that have followed.

But the collective failures of the post 2017 government have pushed our country into near third world status. Poor educational stewardship, mostly at the hands of the current Prime Minister, have cast a blight over the prospects of today’s young where standards have dropped and school achievement levels have never been so bad. The health system was overturned during a pandemic and is in substantially worse shape than it was in 2017. Hospital staff shortages were exacerbated by that silly little fellow Michael Wood’s misguided immigration policies and show few signs of improving. Money thrown out the window during Covid lockdowns contributed to today’s inflation and to the judgement by the International Monetary Fund that New Zealand’s forecast economic growth in 2024 will be worse than all the other 159 countries they surveyed except Equatorial Guinea that is being ripped apart by civil war. Sky-rocketing public service staff numbers, supplemented by hundreds of millions spent on consultants, have contributed towards the appalling state of the Crown’s accounts that is likely to be revealed in the Pre-election Fiscal Update on 12 September. Grant Robertson knows it’s coming and his recent scramble to pull back hundreds of millions to the Crown coffers is to try to mask the laxness that will be revealed in his books.

Fortunately, we get an opportunity on 14 October to begin the rebuild of New Zealand’s standard of living, its educational and health policies, and move away from the dismal condition we have been reduced to by six years of the most incompetent government of my lifetime.

Speed limits to reduce – Peter Williams :

Sometimes I wonder if politicians just want to really, really piss us off.

How else could you explain some crazy scheme which we in the south might have to put with about how fast we can drive? Not far from where I live, the Queenstown Lakes Council want to slow Wanaka right down. At the moment the speed limit in town is already just 40kph . Now there are plans to reduce that 30kph or lower.

This is part of the council’s SMP or Speed Management Plan. What’s even worse is that there are about 20 non-urban roads in the area where it’s proposed the speed limit will reduce from 100kph to 60 or even 40. Then there’s another 30 roads where the 100 kph limit will be taken back to 80.  

It is just nuts. This part of the world has very good quality roads, which do not have much traffic on them. Fatal or injury accidents are a rarity in this region for those reasons.

This is all being driven, excuse the pun, from Wellington, from the bureaucracy sometimes known as the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Unbelievably on the web pages explaining the rationale behind this Setting of Speed Limits Rule and its mate the National Speed Limit Register is this phrase – “providing a single source of truth on speed limits nationwide.”

How can a public servant possibly use that phrase ever again in New Zealand public discourse? It was a disgrace when Ardern tried to pull it during Covid and it’s a disgrace now.

How can there be a single source of truth on something like speed limits? Here’s another line from the website – “the stated objective of the Setting of Speed Limits rule is to contribute to road safety by providing for a whole of network approach where speed management is considered alongside investment in safety infrastructure.”

So basically the government wants us to slow down so that they don’t have to fix the roads so often. 

There are places around the country where possibly traffic volumes dictate a slower speed. But not where I live in the Upper Clutha Valley. 

There’s an old saying in racing about horses for courses. Wellington bureaucrats should remember that and stick your single source of truth where the sun doesn’t shine.

Avoid trendy economics – Scott Sumner :

With the rise of social media (especially Twitter), it has becomes easier to observe changes in the zeitgeist. Over the past few years, I’ve seen the following trends:

1. Claims that increases in the minimum wage do not have negative side effects.
2. Claims that we don’t have to worry about big budget deficits when the interest rate is low.
3. Claims that changes in the money supply don’t impact inflation.
4. Claims that neoliberalism no longer works, and that we need an industrial policy.

In each case, trendy pundits rejected long established economic principles. And now the chickens are coming home to roost.  . . 

To summarize, stay away from trendy economic fads.  The eternal verities never change:

1. Price controls are bad (whether on wages, prices rents or interest rates.)

2. Large budget deficits are bad, even if interest rates are low at the time. 

3. Persistent inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

4.  Free market economies do better than statist economies.  Emulate Denmark, not Argentina.