In an excellent article written recently for the Spectator magazine Matthew Paris a retired Conservative Party Minister ruminated on the reasons why the recently elected British Labour Party would lose the next election, if indeed it lasted the full term. In essence his thesis is that parties have a personality which suits the wishes of its traditional voters and is sufficiently attractive to swing or new voters. If that personality no longer accords with the spirit of the times and the wishes of its supporters, it will be voted out of office at the first opportunity. He cites the anomaly of the Tony Blair’s three term Labour Government which managed to please not only its traditional supporters but also a wide spectrum of Conservative private enterprise voters compared with his successor the one term Gordon Brown Labour Government which was not in tune with the spirit of the times and pleased very few.
Applying this analysis to the current and recent political landscape in New Zealand, a Labour Government led by Jacinda Ardern won a narrow majority in 2017 and governed only with the support of New Zealand First, reflecting Winston Peters’ disgust with the National Party. Clearly it did not represent the wishes of mainstream electors. In 2020 it secured an astonishing outright win and was able to govern alone. In that time, it embarked on a policy of the Maorification of New Zealand with its three waters policy of handing over control of all fresh water to Maori interests. It commissioned the He Puapua report which prescribes Maori governance of New Zealand by 2040. It encouraged the wilful misreading of the Judgements of the Court of Appeal in the 1984 lands case as authority for the notion that the 1840 agreement constitutes a “partnership” between the signatories and the Crown . It imposed a requirement that Maori practices and myths be introduced into all social and economic activities beginning in the schools and Universities irrespective of their relevance. A process which is continuing today for example with the latest being a requirement of fire services personnel to have regard to Maori practices in extinguishing fires. It encouraged the notion of Maori myths having a place in all areas of science and engineering no matter how bizarre. It stood by while activist Judges at all levels of the Courts hierarchy introduced these same myths into the structure and interpretation of the common law. It gave preference to Maori people in the allocation of health services and encouraged the growth of a language which is neither Maori nor English. The list goes on.
In the runup to the 2023 election National, ACT and New Zealand First appealed to its voter bases and swing voters by promising to reverse this insidious destruction of New Zealand democracy and social norms as they had previously existed. In Matthew Parris’ terms this was to be their recognition of the “needs of the age.” It gave voters a stark alternative to Ardern Marxism in which she substituted separatist Maori interests for Labour’s traditional “working class” base and used those interests to destabilise the existing order – and very successfully so. Her political prescription was a contemporary application of the inscription to be found on Karl Marx’s tombstone in London’s Highgrove cemetery. It reads: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.” And that she did.
The election result was a landslide against Labour and its separatist policies. Crucially however it was not an outright win for National. Looking back, I have not the slightest doubt the reason being that the voters did not trust National to follow through on its promises. National has its roots among those voters who believe in self-improvement through personal effort. Unsurprisingly its voter base has from the outset included many farmers and entrepreneurs. It exists to promote family values and the market economy in a democracy regulated by one law for all. Clearly sufficient voters lost trust in National to fulfil these deep-seated ambitions. Memories of the Bolger and Key eras were too fresh in voters’ minds. The process of “treaty” settlements and associated Maori preferment gathered steam underpinned by the notion that the settlers had stolen the land from the tribes and there needed to be recompense no matter how belated and no matter what benefits of living in a civilized society accrued to the tribes’ people. This mindset has about as much logic or grasp of history as Britain claiming against France for the harm suffered in the Norman invasion of 1066, or Argentina claiming against Spain, or the East Indies against Holland. The list goes on. Throughout history there are few if any countries which have not been settled or occupied by peoples from another country. History is what it is. It cannot be rewritten. It cannot be reinvented to suit the commercial interests of a grasping generation. We expect our politicians and senior government servants to understand this – even to have some knowledge of history, possibly even the of Omar Khayyam the Persian philosopher and his timeless reminder:
“The moving finger writes and having writ, moves on nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
Or perhaps something a little more contemporary in the 2020 work of Samuel Harris, “The myth of the stolen country” – a summary of which is readily available on the internet. In exploding the myth for what it is he focuses in part on the ignorance of the exponents of the priceless benefits of democracy, one law for all, a common language, and the market economy in elevating the dispossessed to a station undreamed of by the complaining tribes.
The performance of the Coalition in fulfilling its election promises must be judged against this background of the inanity of attempting to rewrite history.
The coalition performance of its election promises
At the outset it needs to be said that this government had the potential to be one of the most open and honest in our recent history. There is an abundance of talent and experience in both the cabinet and on the backbenches aided by the fact that the opposition is little more than a pathetic joke easily demolished by the Coalition members on any issue. Given these advantages they have made a good, if unnecessarily belated start in tackling the mess left by the Ardern government. The have begun to rebuild the economy focussing on communications and building. There is a long overdue emphasis on healing the damage left by Ardern and her Covid policies by restoring the place of basic learning skills. They have reversed the Ardern closure of our oil and gas resources. They have, led by Shane Jones, reopened and enlarged the mining of coal, rare earths and gold creating thousands of jobs. They have significantly reduced the burden on farmers of the global warming farce with the result that our dairy prices are at an all-time high, and meat prices not far behind. Our tourism industry is almost recovered from the depredations wrought by the Ardern government. Bank interest rates have fallen to levels manageable for most borrowers. Ram raids, a weekly fixture of the Ardern government have virtually ceased, and the government is tackling the lawless of uninterrupted shop lifting. It seems clear that the much-maligned boot camps have played their part in these improvements coupled with more rigorous policing. Hospitals and schools are being built where and when the funds allow. The Resource Management Act which has become the single greatest impediment to economic growth, and excrescence on private property rights is being reformed. Charter schools have opened, and pointless regulations are to be done away with. The list is not exhaustive but is sufficient to support the claim that this is a talented and hard-working government.
That said what is the point of these commendable initiatives and who will reap the benefit of them if this same government sits idly by allowing the destruction of our democracy and its attendant Rule of Law, apparently content to see them replaced by a race-based society in which minority separatist Maori tribes achieve governance of our country. Apart from reinstating the right to ratepayer control over the question of race-based seats on Councils, incomplete repeal of the Ardern three waters legislation, and tinkering with the location of an invented name for our country on passports the coalition has done nothing to halt the insidious march of Maorification at all levels of society. The evidence of this is clear for all to see let alone those at the heart of our political system. It begins with the notion that the 1840 document signed on behalf of the British Crown and some native tribal chiefs creates a “partnership” between those Chiefs and the Crown. It does not. There are three clauses in the document none of them refer to a partnership for the simple reason that it was and is inconceivable for the British Crown to enter into a partnership with a disparate group of tribal chiefs. No amount of dissembling by inventing maori terms not to be found in the document or wilfully misreading the Judgments of the Court of Appeal in the 1984 Crown lands case can alter the simple fact that those chiefs who signed the document welcomed British settlement of their lands and in return achieved the rare privilege of becoming British citizens, with the economic and social benefits which flowed from that status. Added to which within a short time they gained the special right to vote for members of Parliament in the newly formed Legislature. This matured into the same equal voting rights as all other New Zealand citizens.
The Rule of Law
In signing the document and becoming British subjects those tribes accepted that British Common Law would apply throughout the land, and it did without complaint from any maori interests for the next 180 years – indeed as the Law Reports bear witness maori litigation relying on British law as modified by New Zealand Courts has been enthusiastically adopted. It was not until 2022 the Court of Appeal in the Ellis case by a majority of three to two allowed the novel proposition that maori spiritual values and social practices which it labelled “tikanga” form a part of the common law. This notwithstanding there were no maori interests involved in the case and the common law provided the necessary remedies. This became a precedent binding on all lower courts. Some judges in those courts appear to welcome this wilful perversion of the Common Law and it has been enthusiastically adopted by these judges at all levels and has recently resulted in a newly appointed Court of Appeal judge proposing that the common law be replaced by something called “bi-jural law.” A proposal enthusiastically supported by the dean of one of the Auckland Law Schools. This absurd proposal cannot meet the constitutional necessity in any society that there be one law for all citizens, knowable in advance and for the breach of which ignorance is no excuse. Quite how any citizen conducting their affairs can be expected to know of and understand ancient unwritten tribal practices which differed from tribe to tribe is beyond serious consideration, but our government allows it to gain currency when all that is needed is simple legislation making it clear that tribal spiritual and religious beliefs and customs form no part of the Common law.
The foreshore of New Zealand
Along with the assault on the Rule of Law the question of who has rights in respect of our coastline raises serious questions of the direction in which the country is headed. Stripped of the mumbo jumbo, the case for granting Maori preferential rights in the enjoyment of our coastline rests on the claim that historically they gained some spiritual benefits from observing the coastal environment, and fishing the surrounding seas. The plain answer to this claim is that like all other New Zealanders they can continue to enjoy these pastimes without any special rights. But, of course that is not the point. What is sought are the commercial benefits which flow from the privileges which they claim: ownership of all minerals not expressly governed by the Mining Act including rare earths which are so eagerly sought in our computer and artificial intelligence age. No doubt they will be watching the outcome of the deals being done in respect of these by the Cook Islanders and the Chinese – did I read that John Tamahere had recently paid a visit to China? Coupled with this is the right to object to any activity new or existing on any part of the coastline they are claiming. This gives rise to the long -established tribal practice of ticket clipping in deciding whether to continue with putting the applicant to the expense and long delays involved on letting a contested claim play out or settling for a payment of money, dressed up as koha. We have seen this recently in the millions of dollars extracted by a South Island tribe from an energy company seeking to upgrade its hydro-electricity plant, something which exists for the benefit of all New Zealanders. That these are corrupt practices, extorting money to allow a citizen to go about its lawful pursuits does not appear to trouble the Government at all. Hence if the tribes are given the rights they are seeking to the foreshore and sea- bed such practices will become embedded. The Government’s recent announcement that the legislation cancelling the effect of some recent Court decisions is to be welcomed and it does tighten the definition of uninterrupted exclusive use and occupation. That it well-intentioned is evident from the visceral criticism of Christopher Finlayson a former Minister of the Crown. But for as long as the legislation contains a reference to ‘’tikanga’’ defined as ‘’Maori customary values and practices’’ there is room for idiosyncratic decisions by activist judges with a sympathy for all things Maori and the field remains wide open for unending litigation at the taxpayer’s expense. The only effective remedy is to return the ownership of the foreshore and seabed to the Crown to be held for the benefit of all New Zealanders.
Democracy
As discussed above our democracy is under threat from the notion of “partnership” between the Crown and the descendants of a few tribal chiefs who signed the1840 document. The academics and partially educated wokeocracy who advocate for this race- based society seem to be blithely unaware that they are only able to do so because they live in a democracy with the right to free speech. They never pause to reflect that anybody seeking to destabilise any working political system in any of the dictatorships or theocracies – Russia, China, North Korea, Iran etc – would be found guilty of treason and punished accordingly.
Language
A common language is vital for any society to survive and prosper. The past few years have seen a determined push by the separatists and their academic hangers on to replace English with confected invented words made to sound like maori. This has been gaining momentum and whole sections of official documents are now unintelligible to the general public including many of maori heritage. The result is increasing uncertainty, frustration and a loss of trust in the Government.
The Media
The Ardern Government well understood that control of the media is crucial to any destabilising of an existing social order. Hence the million-dollar bribe to any news out-lets which would promote the drift to maorification and avoid allowing any criticism of that process. Any outlet pocketing the bribe was required to repay the money if they later failed to observe these terms. Like so many of her policies it has been a complete success and is alive and well today. That coupled with the naked partiality for all state broadcasting channels against any initiative proposed by the Coalition Government makes it the more difficult to get its messages across to the public. I understand that the Government has made some changes to the Boards of the broadcasters with a view to restoring some impartiality in their presentations. If that is so there is scant evidence of any change. Perhaps viewers and listeners need to possess themselves in patience.
Solutions
These then are some of the more blatant examples of the erosion of our political and social institutions. The question is why is an otherwise strongly performing government allowing it to happen. Clearly the political will to confront these insidious trends must come from the top. The Prime Minister wields the power both in Cabinet and the caucus. By definition to get the job he must be widely respected by his Members of Parliament for his personal qualities if for no other reason that he pulls the strings. Nobody can expect preferment in their Parliamentary career without the PM’s imprimatur. Those who have been elevated can just as quickly be demoted without warning or apparent cause as happened in the case of the Minister of Health, and the Chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Human nature being what it is there will be Members languishing on the back benches because they do not share the Prime Mister’s views on matters such as human induced global warming or maorification. It is when the subject disagreements encroach on the protection of our democracy and way of life that the matter becomes acutely serious, and that is what we are confronted with in the person of the Prime Minister. It is well known that he is sympathetic to all things Maori and for all of the superficial reasons which characterise the debate: loss of land, poverty, minority status, barriers to success in the market-led economy, health disparities etc. He has spent some of his valuable rest time in learning the language. When the question of the name of New Zealand first arose he openly expressed the view that Aotearoa was quite acceptable for domestic use, but not internationally because that might adversely affect trade. This without any hint of understanding that the people might want a say in such major change as the alteration of their identity – as they did when John Key wanted to change the flag which was roundly rejected in a referendum. The PM’s attitude to the relationship between maori interests and the rest of society came into sharp focus in the debate on the ACT proposal to define the principles of the 1840 document. He was viscerally against it but not for the logical reason adopted by New Zealand First, that there are no principles in the document. His opposition appeared to be a concern that the Bill would disadvantage maori in seeking preferred constitutional status. These warning signs coupled with his early signs of a love affair with all things maori were evident when he took over as CEO of Air New Zealand. Passengers were greeted in maori whether we liked it or not and the in-flight videos and safety messages carried maori translations. I recall being treated to a maori translation of a Shakespeare play.
These are all views which any New Zealander is free to adopt. Our democratic and legal institutions guarantee us freedom of thought and speech. What is not permissible is to promote these views from a position of political power such as is enjoyed by the Prime Minister. He is there to safeguard the institutions which if nothing else brought him to power. It is his job to ensure that any threats to those institutions are promptly and firmly met by the necessary legislation and by publicly speaking out against them. Only cabinet members know what goes on in the room and they are sworn to secrecy, but when the external signs become so clear the public is entitled to assume that the failure to confront this assault on our institutions comes from the top.
Our Prime Minister has all the qualities of a decent human being. He has religious principles and is a good hard working family man, but he is a manager not a leader. It is impossible to manage a way out of a conflict in which one party wishes to destroy your values and take over your institutions. Faced with this unless the Prime minister is prepared to step up and lead on these matters he must step down and be replaced by somebody who believes in Democracy and the Rule of Law – somebody who will confront those such as activist judges and separatist maori as they arise by promoting legislation promptly passed, not buried in referrals and reports. The country deserves a Prime Minister who will uphold and defend its values. If that means unruly demonstrations and long marches, so be it. A new Prime Minister will rest content in knowing that they have the overwhelming support of the New Zealand public.
If the present journey is allowed to continue then National will have forfeited the trust of its members in voting it into office. In Matthew Parris’s terms the party will have demonstrated that it does not have the “nature” of a Party wedded to democracy and the Rule of Law which its members have always believed were its core values. The result will be that at the next election many loyal National Party voters will vote for a minority party and candidate. Either National will become the minority member of a coalition with ACT and New Zealand First, or the door will be open to a Labour, Green, Maori Party government which will allow the separatists to finalise their attack on our institutions.
Post- script
If some doubt exists that this overstates the case readers would be well advised to peruse the “Yarook” reports tabled by a Commission of Enquiry set up by the previous [Marxist] government of the State of Victoria. The first of which reports lists all the usual canards about the effects of colonisation without a mention of the benefits and recommends payment of billions in compensation. The second part repeats all this and adds the novel recommendation, not yet thought of by our separatists, that as all of the buildings in the State are erected on stolen land, they should be given over to their true native owners. The idea will almost certainly catch on here.