Last week’s revelation by National’s Minister of Maori Development Tama Potaka (a former Maori Party member) that “a new committee led by Adrian Rurawhe is working on formally integrating tikanga Maori into Parliament” has heightened public concern that the Coalition is failing to uphold its key election pledge to “Stop all work on He Puapua”.
He Puapua was the Ardern Government’s blueprint to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This radical plan for constitutional transformation aimed to deliver tribal rule by 2040 – the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Integrating tikanga or Maori custom into New Zealand’s legal system to undermine the Rule of Law – one of the cornerstones of democratic government – was key to that agenda.
The reason is that tikanga is not law. It is ill-defined spirituality and custom that can morph into anything Maori wish it to be in whatever circumstance they wish it to apply.
As a result, tikanga will corrupt the legal system to permanently advance Maori interests.
The drive to embed tikanga as a foundational legal principle has been led by the former head of the Waitangi Tribunal, Justice Joe Williams, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Labour in 2019.
But instead of eliminating ‘tikanga’ from the law, in order to “Stop He Puapua” and fulfil their election promise, the Coalition now appears to be on the cusp of entrenching it into Parliament.
Instrumental in this latest development was a stunt staged by four of the seven MPs who hold Parliament’s Maori Seats. During the vote on the First Reading of the Treaty Principles Bill last year, the Maori Party’s Rawiri Waititi, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, along with Labour’s Peeni Henare performed a haka, and as a result were referred to the Privileges Committee.
The Maori Party is claiming the haka is an expression of Maori tikanga that should be accommodated within the rules of Parliament. But as those rules stand, anything intimidatory or disruptive that could be regarded as interfering with free expression in Parliament can be interpreted as a breach of Parliamentary Privilege. This is a special right dating back hundreds of years that is granted to Parliament and its members to ensure they can perform their duties without external interference.
For 171 years New Zealand’s Parliament has successfully operated on the fundamental democratic principles of respect and equality. If tikanga is now introduced into the operation of Parliament, it will be twisted and turned to deliver special privileges to Maori. It would represent a giant stride towards He Puapua and tribal rule by 2040.
By refusing the address concerns that saw electors toss Labour out of office, National is now seen as a weak link.
Meanwhile, the extremists driving this radical agenda are pulling out all the stops to prevent National from putting on the brakes.
In particular they are so worried about the Coalition’s election pledge to, “Confirm that the Government does not recognise the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as having any binding legal effect on New Zealand”, that they have called for the UN’s help!
Last month, on behalf of the National Iwi Chairs Forum, lead author of He Puapua, Auckland University’s Professor Claire Charters, appealed to the UN’s Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York for assistance: “We call on the Permanent Forum to take all measures… in relation to New Zealand to reverse any deliberate policy and legislation rejecting the Declaration.”
So, while tribal activists are worried the He Puapua juggernaut that Labour established under their direction, could be under threat from the Coalition, voters are worried that not nearly enough is being done to stop it.
In particular, the increasing radicalisation of the Maori seats, which is at the forefront of this problem, is being ignored.
While these race-based seats, which were established as a temporary measure in 1867 to give Maori men the vote were well intentioned, they have now been weaponised by radical activists committed to destroying democracy from within.
The Maori seats should have been abolished in 1876 when all men gained voting rights – or in 1893 when New Zealand adopted a universal franchise.
Failing that, they should most certainly have been removed when MMP was introduced in 1993, given the Royal Commission on the Electoral System explicitly recommended their abolition in order to prevent an over-representation of Maori in Parliament.
Abolition was certainly the intention of Jim Bolger’s National Government, with the original Bill introducing MMP stating, “No provision is made for separate Maori seats.”
However, as a result of the demands of tribal leaders, National caved in and the Maori seats were included in the legislation.
As predicted by the Royal Commission, MMP delivered greater Maori representation on the party lists, with the result that the Maori seats are now distorting the proportionality of Parliament and leading to a gross overrepresentation of Maori.
But in spite of many election promises over the years for a binding referendum on the future of the Maori seats, no political party has had the strength of character to give New Zealanders the option of voting for a common electoral roll with no division by race.
As a consequence of this political cowardice, the MPs now being elected into those race-based seats are aggressive extremists who treat Parliament and the general public with contempt as they pursue their agenda to disrupt and destroy our democracy.
The Maori Party, which holds six of those seven Maori seats clearly state this on their website:
“There is a new generation of Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti who recognise that being forced to work within the system does not suit our struggle for mana motuhake. It is time to dismantle this system so we can rebuild one that works for everybody.”
They are succeeding.
Using the legitimacy of Parliamentary representation, the radical MPs in those race-based seats are sabotaging our system from within. By targeting Maori roll voters – who put their Maori identity ahead of being a New Zealander – and poisoning them against the Coalition and everything it stands for, they are fuelling race hatred and a loathing for democracy.
Step by step, they are dismantling the democratic foundations of our country.
The Maori Party’s vision statement outlines their plan: “Our vision is for constitutional transformation that rebalances the scales of power in Aotearoa. That restores the tino rangatiratanga of Tangata Whenua, and truly embodies what was envisaged by our tupuna in 1840.”
Their focus on “constitutional transformation” is the key.
A previous attempt at constitutional transformation by Maori seats MPs took place in 2010, when John Key’s National Government agreed to a $4-million Constitutional Review as part of a coalition deal with the Maori Party.
It failed.
The public overwhelmingly rejected their plan to replace New Zealand’s unwritten constitution, which upholds the sovereignty of Parliament, with a new written constitution based on the Treaty.
Not only would such a constitution have ensured all new laws and regulations advantage Maori, but it would also have elevated the judiciary into the country’s supreme lawmakers.
At the time, the National Iwi Chairs Forum established an Independent Constitutional Transformation Working Group under the chairmanship of Professor Margaret Mutu. Their report, Matike Mai Aotearoa, which Claire Chalmers helped to draft, has become a catalyst for change.
Undeterred by public rejection of a Treaty-based constitution, an audacious backdoor strategy was developed: instead of the Treaty being embedded in the country’s constitution, public compliance with the Treaty would be achieved by forcing it into the individual constitutions of organisations throughout the country.
Once Labour picked up all seven Maori seats in 2017 and Jacinda Ardern became Prime Minister, the window of opportunity to progress this agenda opened. Working in collaboration with tribal leaders, the Office of Maori Crown Relations was established in 2019 and the strategy was launched.
The public service and other Crown entities were targeted first, followed by organisations that depend on the government for registration or funding including professional bodies, charities and incorporated societies.
Another cornerstone of constitutional transformation – the elevation of the Judiciary into a lawmaking role – occurred in 2019. Labour’s Legislation Act, which included a section 11 requirement that, “Legislation applies to circumstances as they arise” was interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that judges can determine statutes based on evolving societal attitudes and values, instead of being bound by the original intent of Parliament when the legislation was passed.
The effect can be seen in the Marine and Coastal Area Act debacle, where the Courts effectively re-wrote a law that should have ensured only a minority of claims for the coast would succeed, into one that virtually guarantees all claimants will win.
This week’s Guest Commentator, Roger Partridge, the Chairman of the New Zealand Initiative and a former Head of Bell Gully, explains the situation:
“Some commentators – including one of our own Supreme Court judges – have suggested section 11 of our Legislation Act 2019 entitles the courts here to take a more expansive approach to statutory interpretation than would otherwise be permissible.
“However, the learned Judge’s views on section 11 are mistaken. A careful analysis of the section’s terms and legislative history makes clear that it has no such effect.
“Section 11 serves an important but limited purpose: ensuring that statutes can address new situations not specifically contemplated when Parliament passed them into law. What section 11 does not authorise is the reinterpretation of statutory terms based on judges’ perceptions of evolving social values.
“The distinction is crucial. Courts can and should apply existing statutory concepts to new circumstances within their original scope and meaning. But they cannot legitimately update the meaning of statutory terms simply because they believe social attitudes have evolved.
“The former ensures laws remain relevant as technology and circumstances change. The latter effectively transfers lawmaking power from Parliament to the judiciary – an outcome that undermines both the democratic legitimacy of the law and the rule of law itself.”
What Roger Partridge has pointed out is that the activist rulings of the Supreme Court – including Marine and Coastal Area Act cases – are based on self-serving interpretations of the law that favour Maori.
It is now up to the Coalition Government to put that right. But will they do so?
The Maori MPs occupying the race-based seats are disrupters who have no respect for democracy. They intend to destroy it, using tikanga and anything else they can, to advance their cause.
New Zealand is now on a slippery slope. Step by step, we are becoming a co-governed country – ruled by totalitarian tribal leaders operating in their own self-interest.
The Maori Party spells out what’s in store on their website:
* Establish a Māori Parliament
* Implement all Matike Mai recommendations for constitutional transformation
* Remove the British Royal Family as Head of State
* Recognise Aotearoa as the country’s official name
* Replace all Pākeha place names, cities and towns to their original Māori ingoa by 2026.
* Return the foreshore and seabed to mana whenua
* Return all central and local government land to mana whenua
* Return all conservation land to mana whenua
* Introduce a first right of refusal policy for mana whenua on all private land
* Make all Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on the Crown
* Abolish ‘full and final’ settlement policies
* Entrench the Māori electorates
* Legislate for all councils to have both Māori wards and mana whenua representation.
That’s just one part of one policy section out of twelve listed on their website.
New Zealand has one of the longest running democracies in the world, but the Maori Party’s policy agenda shows only too clearly, the Maori seats have been weaponised to destroy it.
So, will the Coalition accelerate the tribal takeover of our country by agreeing to introduce tikanga into Parliament, or will they honour their election pledge to voters and reject it?
Only time will tell.
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Should the Coalition allow tikanga to be introduced into Parliament?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| Absolutely NOT! Tikanga in Parliament would be a disaster! It would be a giant leap towards a Maori takeover of our country. | David |
| No, No, No! Surely the Coalition realises this is a VERY BAD idea! | Maureen |
| Tikanga should be removed from the law by the Coalition. They should not even be entertaining introducing it into Parliament. Let’s hope they are strong enough to say “no”! | Bob |
| What a disaster tikanga in Parliament would be. Can’t you imagine it: “mihi” before every speech and “waiata” after them all. Nothing would get done! | Jason |
| Keep culture out of Parliament. End of story. | Allan |