The Government not only cannot define racism, it would seem, it cannot recognise racism when it hits it in the face. 

As Health Minister Ayesha Verrall rallies to defend the indefensible, it is important to note that this unethical policy has not appeared out of the blue. It stands on the foundation of racism that this Government has normalised.

This week we will deliver our open letter calling for a condemnation of all forms of racism to Justice Minister Kiri Allan as planned. Fed up, 28,648 New Zealanders have signed the letter having identified that something is very wrong in New Zealand. It is the letter that NZME refused to publish.

“We call on you to make clear to the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission (including the Race Relations Commissioner) that as minister you do not tolerate any form of racism and that no matter who it is targeted at, the Government will treat the matter seriously.”

The Government keep trying to hide behind their policy and legislative failures by accusing everyone else of racism, but they are unwilling or unable to define what racism is nor confirm that it is something they take seriously when it is directed at anyone. This latest healthcare revelation is a symptom of this.

The incorporation of racism into legislation and public policy must be stopped. It is unethical and indefensible.

Every New Zealander should be able to feel safe in the knowledge that if they need medical treatment their race will not unfairly disadvantage them. There is a thing or two written about this in the Human Rights Act 1993!

Ignoring practical alternatives and failing to effectively engage with those who can provide solutions, Labour has simply forged ahead with a race-based health system.

Given that the recent health reforms embedded division of races in the legislation by forming a separate Maori Health Authority, it is hardly unexpected that further race-based policies would follow. Co-governance is a recipe for further disharmony not cooperation.

Even before the Pae Ora (Health Reform) legislation came into effect $22million was allocated to establishing the Maori Health Authority board headed up by Nanaia Mahuta's sister Tipa.

The New Zealand Initiative produced a comprehensive report on what is actually needed for Health Reform. 

The foreword of this report was prepared by Dr Des Gorman Emeritus Professor of Medicine, who is himself Maori. In a podcast discussion on this issue he said:

"We can all agree that the time to address the underlying causes of this inequality is well overdue. However, what is needed are objective data about what leads to improved outcomes rather than political rhetoric."

He is exactly right. And was also right when he defended the professionalism of the health service refuting the accusations of systemic or institutional racism.

Additionally, the commentary of inequitable outcomes was noted by many as having much more complex contributing factors. Most of these factors are outside of the control of health services. Ultimately, there is no evidence that basing service delivery by race will achieve better health outcomes.

Dr Lawrie Knight also produced a very considered and detailed submission regarding the health reform - click to read. 

Some of New Zealand's brightest minds can clearly see through the accusations of systemic and institutional racism that are the fallback position of this Government. They know it is a distraction from real issues. 

Race should never be a consideration, in the allocation of health services. Every New Zealander's health is important and every life is valued. It is frankly sickening to see Kiwis valued differently depending on their race. Who their ancestors are.

This is why Hobson’s Pledge has been fighting against racism so aggressively over the past few months. It is embedded in our Government and public services and we cannot afford to be complacent. New Zealand is a proud multicultural nation and to suggest that my Maori heritage would be a factor in me getting access to healthcare that another Kiwi might need more should be abhorrent to everyone.

I know I have asked you to sign a lot of petitions lately, but it is working! They allow us to draw attention to these issues and it is very hard to ignore our collective voice. So, I am asking again. Please sign:

New Zealanders want a health system based on need, not race. Sign the petition to demand that the New Zealand Government immediately halts all race-based prioritisation in healthcare and triages patients by need and urgency. 

We cannot effect real change while so many New Zealanders are being forced to be silent and accept the racist division of our wonderful country.

Please help us normalise this conversation and give courage to more New Zealanders to say ENOUGH!

One nation, one people. Don’t let them keep dividing us.

So many issues driven by our current Government have race at their foundation.

As I wrote about last week, we are still working through the impact of the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms proposal from the Department of Internal Affairs and Independent Electoral Review recommendations.

These demonstrate that instead of being an inclusive multicultural nation where equal rights before the law are assured, we have become a divided nation.

It now seems that as a Maori, I am not only afforded different rights before the law but also expected to forgo all democratic rights of representation and consideration due to the arrogant claims of a Maori representative whom hardly anyone voted for.

Yesterday, Rawiri Waititi, the co-leader of the Maori Party, was discussing gang lawlessness and, staring into his camera, told the Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party that they needed to "shut their mouths."

In an environment of escalating crime, and with so many families and businesses living in fear, we can’t even discuss the foundational issues of law and order.

The Maori Party is not the elected representative or the voice of Maori. In the last election, with a Maori roll of 276,013, the Maori Party secured only 33,632 votes, representing just 12%. When the total number of eligible Maori voters are 473,046 (nearly half of whom chose not to be separated by race and opted out of the Maori roll), they secured only 7% of the total Maori vote.

We frequently hear democracy demonised as the tyranny of the majority, but tyranny of the minority is an appalling alternative.

Waititi commented on this situation in Opotiki when he stated “Christopher Luxon, Chris Hipkins need to shut their mouths and stop using our people as a political football to score points. They have no business whatsoever commenting on matters they know nothing about. Keep my iwi out of your mouth.”

When the community of Opotiki has closed schools and parks in an environment of fear, it seems that the leader of the Maori Party not only believes he represents all Maori but also suggests that non-Maori do not warrant any consideration or protection.

He went on to comment, "Please be respectful at this particular time as our community mourns their loved one." It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is suggesting that ALL Maori are affiliated with or members of the Mongrel Mob.

How does New Zealand hope to come up with solutions when political leaders can demand that those of a different ancestry "shut their mouths" on such foundational issues as law and order?

With all that is happening now, the last thing we need is for politicians to shut their mouths. We need more accountability, more transparency, and, most of all, more answers.

The Department of Internal Affairs, the one who produced the proposal to limit and restrict what we can say online, except for Maori, is in the firing line for sneaking through changes to the Three Waters legislation without authority. These changes were only picked up by later scrutiny from MPs.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the former prime minister and constitutional law expert, rightly notes "There is always a temptation in emergency situations to cut corners and depart from constitutional principle. New Zealand lacks the checks and balances to prevent such constitutional slippage."

This does not bode well for the even more complex and unworkable resource management reform legislation.

We know how easily constitutional slippage can occur, like when this Government attempted to remove equal suffrage from New Zealand through the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill. This would have become law if the bill hadn't been successfully challenged by our supporters. Your support and public outcry do work!!!

The tactics of the Department of Internal Affairs reported this week demonstrate why we must continue to be diligent and under no circumstances should we “shut our mouths”.

Thank you for your massive support in making submissions on the bi-lingual road signs. We are close to 20,000 submissions, with another two weeks to go before the closing date.

It is hard not to conclude that our Prime Minister is himself keen for us to shut our mouths when he comments on those criticising the road sign proposal: “There is a racist underbelly in some of the public dialogue around this and that does seem to be an audience the National Party are trying to appeal to.”

This issue is discussed in length in an article by Graham Adams called 'Are bilingual road signs safe or even sensible?'

Your support in making submissions on the bilingual road signs is not representative of a racist underbelly but rather a representation of New Zealanders who are frustrated by a narrative of race-based division and want real, practical, effective solutions that deliver better outcomes for all.

If you haven't already, use our submission tool to have your say on the bilingual signs.

In a race to the October election, our current Government is determined to avoid any scrutiny of their failure to deliver a single positive outcome for New Zealanders. Instead, they are doubling down on every ideological and divisive bit of social engineering they can get their hands on. That leaves us to repeatedly fight for and defend essential foundations such as free speech, democracy, and equality before the law.

In the words of TS Elliot, we are “distracted from distraction by distraction”.

This is worth remembering when the media circus buzzes around the stupid behaviour of certain ministers. Sure, we need to hold ministers like Michael Wood accountable, but we can't allow it to obscure the pernicious policies and laws continuing down the conveyor belt at the Beehive.

However, a lot of the 'distractions' we are being hit with lately are actually connected to our fight for democracy and equality before the law. We can't afford not to address them. 

For example, as we wait for the select committee to report back on the contentious and fundamentally flawed RMA reform legislation, we have been “distracted” by calls for submissions on:

1. Bilingual signage proposals from Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency – submissions close at the end of June.
2. Safer online services and media platforms proposal released by the Department of Internal Affairs – submissions close 31 July 2023.
3. And just this week, the Electoral Reform Report produced by He Arotake Poititanga Motuhake or, for the 96% of New Zealanders who do not speak Te Reo Maori, the “Independent Electoral Review” – submissions close 17 July 2023.

The first is another blatant example of government departments going ahead with vanity projects that have nothing to do with their legislated purpose and which favour virtue signalling over things like safety, accessibility, and democracy.

You'll see our ad in this week's Herald on Sunday encouraging New Zealanders to have their say on the matter. 

The second is more concerning as it introduces race-based policy to the issue of censorship and speech laws. It puts forward the idea that Māori should be held to different, more lax, standards of online behaviour and that is very worrying. It also continues the theme of co-governance structures by proposing key decision-making roles should be iwi-appointed.

This is a fundamental right at stake, and one that is key to the protection of democracy, and the Department of Internal Affairs wants to allocate different rights based on who your ancestors are. 

The third report was foisted upon us this week and covers a wide range of electoral issues while carefully avoiding constitutional issues like the MMP system itself. Unsurprisingly, repeated references Te Tiriti o Waitangi are made throughout to add a further layer of complexity. Those "Treaty Principles" seem to be an obligatory, albeit vaguely defined, part of anything bureaucrats produce. 

Funnily enough, the report does not touch on the opportunity to remove Maori electorates. This is despite the observations by the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommending that MMP could provide better electoral representation for Maori than the Maori electorates, given the very large geographic area of these electorates, thus improving representation.

Instead of any consideration or opportunity to discuss this option that would allow Maori greater iwi/hapu-centric representation models and much more unified engagement in local communities, the report proposes greater complexity.

As I wade through another Government document (all 338 pages of it - I read it so you don't have to!) it is evident that, yet again, Maori are to be treated differently before the law with the option of being able to register to vote based upon their ancestral or iwi connections rather than their physical address. They also would have the option of being on different rolls for local elections than for general elections:

“There may be many reasons why voters of Māori descent may want to be on different rolls for national and local elections. The electoral rolls already record a person’s general electorate and local ward, and so they should be able to capture their roll choice for each. We consider that allowing them to make separate roll choices for national and local elections, rather than having to update their roll choice between elections, will remove an administrative barrier. In this way, the Crown can uphold its Tiriti / Treaty obligations to actively protect Māori citizenship rights and participation by ensuring Māori have the freedom to choose rolls.”

If you want to put yourself through the 338 pages of woke drudgery feel free to find the report here! 

While this Government of broken promises and failure to deliver prepares to campaign for re-election, it would seem they want to give the appearance of being busy by overwhelming us with ineffective, unnecessary, and poorly timed proposals for change. Change very, very few Kiwis are asking for.

In addition, we cannot forget that the Minister of Maori Development, Willie Jackson, has gone very quiet on his He Puapua Mk II report. His update in October last year was designed to calm an increasingly concerned population with an emphatic "nothing to see here, folks!" He said he was re-looking at the language, but now we have deafening silence.

It should not be lost on anyone that one of the authors of both He Puapua and the new mystery version, Professor Jacinta Ruru, was also one of the authors of the proposal to the New Zealand Law Society to introduce new statutory duty for lawyers to adhere to the undefined “principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.

Willie Jackson and his colleagues have a history of trying to get the stuff they know will be unpopular hidden below the radar. Remember He Puapua was kept hidden until after Labour was re-elected in 2020 and its recommendations around health and water were quickly adopted. The RMA reforms usher in another lot of He Puapua objectives.

I know that we all have so much better things to do and keeping track of our Government’s tactics is exhausting but we know that our silence is interpreted as support.

We are working on how we can best slow this runaway freight train of division and racism. But, for now, please keep talking about these issues – this is not the country we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

For now, if you haven’t already, please use our submission tool to have your say on the bilingual signs.

After spending this long weekend on New Zealand's roads, I know that many of you must have been looking at the road signs and wondering “Why isn’t there more Maori language on them?”

Invest resources to improve road safety and capacity? NO! The important thing is prioritising the inclusion of more Maori language on signage.

That is certainly how our bureaucrats think.

Waka Kotahi – the New Zealand Transport Agency – is currently running a programme called He Tohu Huarahi Māori bilingual traffic signs programme with Te Mātāwai. This programme will see the rolling out of new road signage that preferences Te Reo Māori as the primary language with English relegated as the translation, sometimes in smaller font.

If you think New Zealanders need better, safer roads, and this should include signs that we all understand, use our submission tool to make your voice heard

Justifying their investment in this work, the Transport Agency says: 

“Waka Kotahi wants to contribute to having te reo Māori seen, heard and spoken wherever possible to continue the revitalisation of the language.”

When did this become part of the remit for a government transport agency? Will its next project be making sure the music we listen to in our cars is sufficiently diverse?

The very obvious truth is that language revitalisation is not in Waka Kotahi's remit. It's core purpose is:

“Our responsibility to contribute to an efficient, effective and safe land transport system in the public interest is set out in the Land Transport Management Act 2003.”

Te Reo Māori is unique to New Zealand and there is a long-running, concerted effort by our Government to preserve and revitalise it. However, there are dedicated funds and agencies for this.

It is frankly absurd for our Transport Agency to be focusing on cultural projects when there is so much for them to be doing that is central to their mission.

According to the 2018 census, only 4% of New Zealanders can hold a conversation about basic everyday things in Te Reo Maori. By prioritising an attempt (probably futile) to educate 96% of the population, in a language they don’t speak via road signage, Waka Kotahi is undermining its core responsibilities.

While bilingual signs may seem like a nice addition, every expenditure of public funds should be dedicated to the agency's primary objectives, rather than virtue signalling nice-to-haves.

Our Prime Minster even tried to assure us that this is not costing any extra money, it will just be when signs need replacing. Does he expect you to believe that they have not committed a massive investment in developing this idealistic project, and what about the cost of consulting and further development?

It is not the role of Waka Kotahi to try and navigate the sensitivities of culture and language. They more than have their hands full with the record number of complaints about potholes damaging cars they received last year and the immense damage caused by Cyclone Gabrielle.

Share my frustrations? Have your say here.

We are apparently to be educated into Te Reo Maori via these road signs - as we fly past at 100km per hour - but it is increasingly difficult to keep up with the ever-changing etiquette associated with the language and culture more generally. 

Just this week ACT asked for a legislative amendment to provide a clear definition of "mātauranga Māori" but it was voted down by Labour. The NZ Herald reported:

"Legal scholars argue rigid definitions fail to acknowledge flexibility of a Te Ao Māori worldview, and the fact elements of mātauranga evolve over time and are usually handed down via word of mouth”

In March this year, Lawyer Lynell Tuffery Huria declared it inappropriate for Maori to be included in the Oxford dictionary explaining her disapproval was because “we are just being more and more assimilated and that’s not what we want.”

We aren't allowed definitions to better understand the concepts and names being used by our Government departments and education system. Kiwis are expected to engage with Te Reo Maori but not too much. How is anyone to know what is the right thing to do?

Ultimately, our roads are not the appropriate place for language education. New Zealanders are entitled to clear, direct instructions and information in the language that the overwhelming majority of us speak.

Join us in telling the Government exactly that.

Let's keep our Government agencies accountable! 

The Government, which cannot define racism, has demonstrated its adeptness at creating it.  

Today, the Department of Internal Affairs has released a proposal for a new way to regulate social media and traditional media platforms. 

This discussion document offers a solution that "introduces more robust consumer protection measures to safeguard New Zealanders while preserving the freedoms we currently enjoy."

Isn't it Ronald Reagan who famously described the most terrifying words in the English language? "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help!"

The proposal aims to establish a new industry regulatory body independent from the Government that will control what can and cannot be discussed online. Yes, you read that right. Because, of course, nothing solves a problem better than adding another layer of bureaucracy.

This 90-page discussion document, accompanied by the executive summary and Fact sheet, outlines lofty ideals about safeguarding New Zealanders from undesirable content on media and online platforms. It’s reasonable to ask, why are we being encouraged to be afraid of things online?

Within the report, statistics indicate that a net survey found 16% of Asian participants experienced online hate speech at least once in the past year. There was no separate statistic for Maori but the combined statistics with Pasifika totalled 13%, while NZ European or "Pakeha" accounted for 9%.

Oddly enough, while this statistic is mentioned, no other ethnic groups are individually identified in the report as warranting separate consideration. However, Maori are given elevated status in a co-governing role within the regulatory body. Even Pasifika, despite being mentioned to prop up the statistic, is overlooked when proposing a solution.

But there is more appalling information about this proposal….

1. The regulator will be responsible for fulfilling the government's Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Despite the lack of clarity surrounding the Treaty's principles, we now have equally ambiguous "obligations." This necessitates Maori involvement in the development and approval of codes of practice by platforms and industries.
2. The regulator may also impose requirements for engagement with Maori during the development of codes of practice.
3. Maori representation will be built into the regulatory system. This would require Maori representation and influence to be present in all stages of platform regulation. 
4. The regulator will be required to have in-house te ao Maori capacity/capability.
5. Iwi and Maori will be involved in the governance of the regulator, and will have significant input in developing the codes of practice.
6. It is suggested codes of practice could set minimum standards for Maori cultural competency and restore ‘mana’ through the complaints process.
7. Maori are granted protections to "express themselves freely," a privilege not given to any other New Zealander.
8. Interventions provide a passing nod to the social and cultural needs of all New Zealanders but then specify a need to be consistent with Treaty obligations as well as recognise and respect te ao Maori and Tikanga. 

Yes, this is a discussion document seeking submissions. So why should we be alarmed?

Remember, over 80,000 submissions were opposed to Three Waters, yet the Minister dismissed them because they expressed similar concerns, and the legislation was passed.

We need to make sure our submissions cannot be ignored by sending a strong message that we will not allow our democracy to be further destroyed.

Make no mistake, this proposal will place Maori at the heart of the decisions about what New Zealanders are allowed to say.

Which Maori gets to make these rules? David Seymour, Winston Peters, me?

Or will it be Tuku Morgan, John Tamihere, or Rawiri Waititi, who, just the other day, called all non-Maori New Zealanders who did not speak Maori "dumb"?

As it stands, this proposal threatens to stop Hobson’s Pledge mission to protect equality before the law. We would be a platform that could be silenced. This is deeply upsetting.

This warrants a public outcry... Can you help me?

We cannot let this Government pull another fast one. But this seems to be their modus operandi: create terrible policies and regulations while everyone is preoccupied trying to put food on the table, heating their homes, and fuel their cars.

This was announced today, and we have until July 31, 2023. Watch this space, as we are rolling up our sleeves and preparing to fight back.

In general, we Kiwis don't like to rock the boat. We are pretty well-mannered and don't charge into confrontations at the drop of a hat. We're good-natured and laid back and tend to employ a "she'll be right" attitude.

Our good nature is being taken advantage of.

Throughout all of this radical change in our country, a particular weapon has been wielded against those of us who have raised objections. It is a weapon that strikes the heart of our desire to get on with our neighbours and be a harmonious people - the accusation of racism. 

Racism is something we all rightly abhor so to be called a racist is disarming and upsetting. It makes us stop and not want to speak up for rights and beliefs that we are entitled to. It creates a chilling effect that shuts down dissent relating to Government policies like co-governance.

Racism accusations are foundational to how this Government justifies treating New Zealanders differently depending on race. But the genius of this tactic is that they get to decide what racism is and we are not allowed to question this. When there is no set definition and the accuser can't be made to justify themselves, it is impossible to defend ourselves against the smear.

Seeing how often the Government is using this racially antagonistic tactic, we decided to ask ministers what definition of 'racism' they were using in the context of their ministries. We also asked them if it is possible for white people to be victims of racism and if there are degrees of racism depending on the race or ethnicity of the person being accused and their 'victim'. We also asked the Human Rights Commission.

The responses we received to our Official Information Act requests were disappointing, to say the least.

From the Human Rights Commission we received:

"The Commission does not hold a single agreed definition of the term "racism".

They refused to answer the other two questions. At least they replied though! The Race Relations Commissioner responded to our OIA acknowledging receiving it on 11 April 2023 but despite an "I’ll get back to you soon," we have heard nothing.

From ministers we received the following:

"Aotearoa New Zealand has no agreed definition of racism" - Marama Davidson

"The OIA cannot be used to force Ministers or agencies to engage in debate or to create justifications or explanations in relation to something a person might be interested in. There is no obligation to create new information to answer an OIA request.
Your request is therefore refused under section 18( e) of the OIA, as the information requested does not exist. " - Ginny Andersen

"Your questions appear designed to engage in a debate about the Government's policies to address racism...I am therefore refusing your request under section 18(g) of the Act." - Barbara Edmonds

"The questions you raise do not appear to be seeking any official information likely to be held by this Office." - Kieran McAnulty 

"This information is not held by the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, nor my Office." - Priyanca Radhakrishnan

"Your questions appear designed to engage in a debate about the Government's policies to address racism...I am therefore refusing your request under section 18(g) of the Act." - Ayesha Verrall

"Your correspondence does not meet the threshold for being a request under the OIA as in order to respond to your query would require an agency to form an opinion or provide an explanation and so create new information to answer." Nanaia Mahuta

"The questions you raise do not appear to be seeking any official information likely to be held by this Office." - Peeni Henare

"The information you have requested is not ‘official information’ and not something which would
be held in my capacity as a Minister." - Andrew Little

"An agency (or Minister) is not required to form an opinion or create information to answer an official information request." - Willie Jackson

"The questions you raise do not appear to be seeking any official information likely to be held by this Office." - Chris Hipkins

"Questions that require the creation of new information, such as forming an opinion or providing an explanation, are not requests for official information." - Jan Tinetti

"The questions you raise do not appear to be seeking any official information but rather appear designed to engage in a debate about racism." - Kelvin Davis

"Your questions appear designed to engage in a debate about the Government’s policies to address racism." - Kiri Allan

Additionally, Willow-Jean Prime, Carmel Sepuloni, and Michael Wood transferred the OIA to their ministries.

In fact the only minister who responded in a slightly fuller manner was Deborah Russell. She began by saying "Stats NZ does not have a standard definition of racism" but then made an attempt to discuss the Human Rights Commission's definition, how Stats NZ deals with discrimination, and explains that Stats NZ collects information on people's experiences of discrimination through the New Zealand General Social Survey.

In short, our Government and its ministers are either unwilling or unable to tell us what 'racism' is and whom it can affect. This is significant for many reasons but I'd like to raise two major ones here.

1. Our Government spends a lot of time and money on anti-racism programmes. If they don't know what racism actually is, what are they spending our taxes on? A few examples of this are the $2 million spent by New Zealand Police on research into 'where bias and racism exist within policing practices', an undisclosed amount spent by the Ministry of Justice on 'a national action plan against racism,' and $42 million spent by the Ministry of Education on 'an antiracism initiative for schools and communities aiming to help Māori students'.

2. Principles of Natural Justice are undermined when a Government is able to make sweeping accusations that can't be proven or defended. As New Zealanders, we have the right to be heard and to be protected by fair process.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights says:

27(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.

It seems that despite not knowing exactly what racism is, our Government is willing to use it to stifle debate and distract from key issues. 

This dirty and unethical strategy will continue until it simply doesn't work anymore and how long that takes is entirely up to New Zealanders like you and me.

We must refuse to allow our good-naturedness as Kiwis to be used against us. We must collectively refuse to be manipulated by race-baiting politicians and bureaucrats. It is entirely up to us.

We are bloody sick of the cries of racism and fabricating of victimhood in order to justify terrible, divisive, and damaging legislation and policy that distracts everyone from a Government that has failed by virtually every measure. By turning us against each other, they avoid the scrutiny.

And, to make sure their justification for racism continues, there is the propensity to cry victim no matter how successful and affluent the individuals concerned might be. As we saw this week when Arena Williams shamelessly used her father by claiming he was choosing health over heating.

So what can we do? Here are three suggestions we can all commit to in our everyday lives. Let me know how you go!

1. Refuse to be divided. Push back on rhetoric that divides us into white and brown by reminding people that we are a multi-cultural country made up of people from all sorts of backgrounds. It is not racist to demand that ALL New Zealanders are treated equally before the law

2. Start saying "that tactic does not work on me" when unfounded accusations of racism are levelled at you for speaking up about policy and law. Assert that you know you are not a racist and do not let underhanded and unfair accusations prevent you from speaking up. 

3. If you haven't already, please sign our open letter to Minister of Justice Kiri Allan. Click here to sign.

I think I have gone on enough for today! I just wanted to reach out because with all that is happening to us, we cannot allow our voices to be silenced.

Thank you for all of your ongoing support for our work. Without supporters like you we wouldn't be able to keep challenging the Government and its proxies. 

As the Government Budget is picked through by the media there is one thing that always seems to be forgotten: outcomes.

Politicians can chuck money left, right, and centre but throwing money at something doesn't guarantee it will perform better or help more people. Announcing funding says absolutely nothing about the quality of the spend and what the outcomes will be.

This was evident when Labour's Maori caucus took to the stage to boast about what they are proud to have delivered for Maori in this Budget. Watch Labour's Maori Caucus discuss the Budget here.

As a side note, if you are not fluent in te reo Maori there will be considerable sections of the media presentation we linked above that you will not be able to understand. It is a shame most New Zealanders won't be able to analyse what the politicians are saying. On that subject, did you know English is not actually an official language of New Zealand? It makes this kind of use of Maori without translation difficult to challenge. While you're here, why not sign our petition demanding that English is made an official language?

There is one section of Labour's Maori Caucus speech that I want to highlight because it is quite an extraordinary admission. I took a few minutes to replay the statement to make sure I was hearing it right! The statement came from Minister of Maori Development Willie Jackson:

“Maori are sort of running two strategies here, we’ve got the by-Maori-for-Maori one but let's not forget that most Maori are not attached to a lot of our Maori organisations there’s going to be huge benefits right across the spectrum. So we’re talking just under $900 million in terms of targeted funding but in terms of Maori receiving benefits they are going to be huge right across the spectrum, we’re proud to deliver this targeted budget in these hard times.”

Look, correct me if I'm wrong, but to me, that sounds a lot like the Minister for Maori Development acknowledging that all of his targeted funds and programmes don't actually reach MOST Maori!

“Most Maori are not attached to a lot of our Maori organisations.”

Again, the Minister is recognising that this special targeted funding is not needed as MOST Maori are not attached to the organisations that are receiving race-based funding. He is explicitly agreeing with some of the points we have been making for a long time - that race-based initiatives aren't effective and that they basically allow one race the opportunity to double-dip into the system. 

He is confirming that in a system that allocates support to those who are in need and vulnerable, there is absolutely no need to differentiate funding on the basis of race.

Minister Nanaia Mahuta re-enforced Jackson's comments when she said:

“The response isn’t binary, it's not either targeted funding for Maori or universal, it's both.”

She clarified how she viewed New Zealanders as two groups, Maori, "Pakeha" and everyone else, rather than a hugely diverse population who call New Zealand home. Mahuta stated:

“We are mindful of cost of living pressures affect every whanau across the country no matter whether they're Maori, Pakeha or otherwise.”

Charming. Did you tick "otherwise" as your ethnicity on the recent Census?

The language that was used to describe Maori as "our whanau" or "our people" is interesting as it gives the impression that Labour's Maori Caucus are ONLY working for Maori. They sit in New Zealand's Parliament and while they may feel an affinity with those who share their race and may even represent a Maori electorate, they are there to serve all New Zealanders - "Maori, Pakeha, or otherwise" as Nanaia Mahuta would say!

At a time when so many families are struggling to put food on the table, petrol in the car, and heat their homes, the Labour Maori Caucus thumbs its nose at their hardship by advocating and celebrating a Government-sanctioned form of preferential race-based treatment.

Despite boasting, the Maori ministers were also apologetic about the meagre $825million they secured for Maori in the Budget when last year they got $1billion.

The $825million was largely 'top-up' funding for the usual big ticket items:

• $200million in additional funding to build and repair more homes through the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga. WKWO was previously allocated a four year budget of $730million to “speed up the delivery of Maori-led housing”.
• $34million over two years for the Te Matatini kapa haka festival. This has been claimed as a victory by the Maori Party and noted as meeting the targeted equivalency with the NZ Symphony Orchestra.
• $18million over four years for Labour’s new public holiday Matariki. This appears to be for promoting and educating about the holiday.
• $168.1million additional funding over four years for Whānau Ora. Under the Ministry of Maori Development, Whānau Ora uses a kaupapa Māori approach to improve the wellbeing of whānau as a group, addressing individual needs within the context of whānau or families and their culture. Although claiming to offer services to all people there is no evidence that this occurs. There is also no evidence of measurable and transparent accountability.
• $132million increased funding for Hauora providers. It is worth noting that it was only July 2022, less than a year ago, that a separate Maori Health Authority was established with great fanfare. Before this system has even had time to establish itself we have somehow recognised that an additional $132million is needed for Maori philosophy health carers. This must be seen as a slap in the face to those waiting months to access a medical specialist. Remembering again that “MOST Maori” are not attached to these organisations.  
• $225million for Māori education. As is often the case, statistics demonstrating lagging Maori outcomes are combined with Pasifika students, however the solution presented - in this case this fund - does nothing for Pasifika students who are struggling.
• $51million over two years for Māori media is another big ticket item that must see the Maori Party president, John Tamihere, rubbing his hands together in glee. Effectively this will be a taxpayer-funded campaign for Tamihere. Not to mention Minister Jackson's own connections to Radio Waatea. 

But inevitably, even this nearly billion dollar lolly scramble is not sufficient for some. The Maori Party labelled the Budget as 'for the rich' and complained that the Maori Budget only represented 0.47% of the total Budget (by their own calculations). It makes me wonder what would be enough for the Maori Party. 

Let's be honest though, the Maori Party are prone to pluck numbers out of the sky and call them facts. We shouldn't be afraid to call them what they are - radicals. Most Maori don't vote for them. They are a fringe party and often spout extremist ideology. Reassuringly, they have announced they could not support any Government budget “until such time as a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa is in full operation”. With any luck that'll keep them on the opposition benches indefinitely.

The Maori Party's scathing contempt for the performance of the Labour Party demonstrates, yet again, that shared Maori ancestry does not guarantee a meeting of the minds or a consensus of opinion. Democratic accountability is the only mechanism where all Maori and all New Zealanders can be respected and assured that our voices are heard. 

If Prime Minster Hipkins was not feeling sufficiently admonished by the Maori Party for recently expressing caution about small parties and their bottom lines, then these latest statements must surely be seen as a reason for Labour to create some distance.

The National Party has ruled out working with the Maori Party, imagine if Labour did too! We could then be assured that extremist, separatist radicals won't get anywhere near the Government benches. We might have to mention it to the Prime Minister.

The childish, petty, hysterics we've all had the misfortune of witnessing in the last week in New Zealand politics highlights the importance of a democracy that provides Kiwis with the ability to vote politicians out come election day. 

It is fundamental that those with the power to make important decisions on our behalf are aware that they are just one election away from being cast out by the people. 

The Green Party are in quite a pickle with the petulant dramas and name calling centring around Elizabeth Kerekere. She has finally decided to pack up her toys and quit the Green Party, calling them racist on her way out. Ironic, given one of the accusations levelled at her was that she calls everyone racist when she doesn't get her own way.

A rumour was circulating that Kerekere might pop up for the Māori Party, but she told the media that she bumped into John Tamihere, and he didn't offer her anything 😬

Then she ruled out going to the Māori Party...before telling other media that "The Māori Party has told her the door is open". Who knows. 

Of course, while this was all going on, Labour’s Meka Whaitiri provided a further distraction from the issues important to New Zealanders (you know, things like putting food on the table, accessing health care, and surviving economic despair) and announced her defection to the Māori Party.

She shot a 'racism' accusation across the bow, saying that the Māori Party provides a voice for Māori women without being censored. Pretty awkward for Labour, seeing as they only recently announced that their Cabinet had the highest number of Māori on record.

In summary, Meka Whaitiri accused Labour of silencing Māori women, Elizabeth Kerekere called the Greens racist, Marama Davidson called the entire political system racist, and we still can't get anyone to tell us what 'racism' is!

The Labour/Green/TPM circus of silliness afforded Christopher Luxon a perfect opportunity to announce that the National Party will not work with the Māori Party. It was a statement that was a long time coming, with Hobson’s Pledge first calling on the National Party to rule out working with them in March last year. Better late than never!

If there was any doubt that the Māori Party was only interested in sensationalising and shocking, listening to their party president John Tamihere doing the media rounds would erase it. No solutions. No aspiration to improve outcomes. No intention to deliver anything.

Using taxpayer-funded media platforms, Tamihere has been promoting only radical ideas about water ownership, control, and separatism. Classic example of someone elevating his position by standing on the backs of vulnerable and in need.

Last month, in his interview with Tuku Morgan on Waatea News, he made it clear what is on the Māori Party's extreme agenda:

“Here’s my view, to what extent do you have a conversation with the power generators on the Waikato to say, hey times up, there’s got to be a levy here. That’s got to be coming surely?” 

You can listen to the interview here. You have to hear it to believe it.

Today, in The Press, Tamihere explicitly lays out the demands the Māori Party will take to coalition talks:

1. Quit 'Five Eyes'
2. Introduce a Capital Gains Tax
3. Penalise landowners for not occupying houses
4. Remove GST from food

But, funnily enough, he excluded any mention of water ownership and charging levies. Do we believe the Tamihere who speaks to Māori media or the one who speaks to mainstream media? 🤷

Just to hammer home the contempt for democracy, in the same Waatea News interview mentioned above, Tuku Morgan stated: 

“Once again, people will continue to hide behind this tyranny of the majority, this Pakeha democracy nonsense, and minimise the significance of the treaty. The Treaty promised us partnership and that is exactly what we are getting.”

Pakeha. Democracy. Nonsense. How do I get a seat on Elon Musk's first rocket to Mars? 

Interesting how Mr Morgan was quite fond of democratic process when Tainui attempted to remove him as iwi chair ten years ago. Despite an outpouring of anger over his performance, he secured a narrow victory when it went to a vote. At that time, he was quick to confirm his right to the position because there had been a vote and seemed happy with how democracy worked in his favour. Watch him discuss the matter here.

It is time people like Morgan and Tamihere realised that being Māori doesn't give them the right to speak for all Māori. The Māori Party is not representative of all Māori. Just look how low it polls!

Many Māori, including yours truly, are tired of the nation being distracted by these self-serving individuals who have demonstrated a total lack of interest in the important issues.

Internal disagreement between iwi, hapu, and whanau has always existed. The suggestion that co-governance assures us of peaceful agreement and smooth “waters” is a total joke. Tuku Morgan and Nanaia Mahuta - both important figures from Waikato-Tainui - agree on many radical ideas of co-governance, but are far from in agreement on other matters.

There is no single Māori opinion. We are individuals, and most of us don't vote for the Māori Party.

As part if our campaign to defend democracy we have put together some videos discussing the issue - you can view the first one here.

It is only through the protection of our democracy that we can be assured that our rights as individuals will be respected, regardless of our ancestry, and that our elected Government is held accountable.  

On May 4^th we announced our defence of democracy and this will be the cornerstone of our work leading up to the election. Whether they call it co-governance, partnership boards, or “mahi tahi” make no mistake it is all founded on removing democratic rights and equality of citizenship.

It is racist and patronising to promote the idea that Māori are so helpless that we need to be treated with special rights in order to get ahead. It is simply not true. 

It is also racist and undemocratic to suggest that if you are not Māori, proportional representation is a negotiable commodity. Not a right. A nice to have.

You can help us push back against racism by signing our open letter to Minister Kiri Allan.

New Zealanders deserve much more than being spectators to the petty and childish antics of our current Government.

Over the past week, we have launched our "What is racism" campaign, where we have demanded our Government answers the question: what exactly is racism?

It was only last year the Police launched an investigation into bias and racism within policing practices at a time when the escalation of violent crime was causing many New Zealanders to live in fear.

With this in mind, on 12 April 2023, I wrote to the Minister of Police and asked:

"What is the definition of racism? Please answer this as it pertains to the Ministry of Police and your role as minister. When your ministry deals with racism or discusses it, what definition do they use?”

This question shouldn't be hard to define, especially if they have been investigating the issue over the past year.

Yesterday I received their response:

"The OIA allows people to request official information held by Ministers and specified government agencies (agencies). The OIA cannot be used to force Ministers or agencies to engage in debate or to create justifications or explanations in relation to something a person might be interested in. There is no obligation to create new information to answer an OIA request."

So this police research, which has cost taxpayers two million dollars, was spent to investigate something that that has no definition within the Police.

When New Zealanders challenge being divided by race and being treated differently before the law, the accusation of racism is easily thrown around to stifle important conversations.

Yet when we ask to know what racism means, they claim that they have no obligation to create new information.

Do we not have a right to know what we are funding? Not to mention what we are being accused of!

New Zealanders need to know that all of us will be afforded equal protection, and we need your help to make sure of this.

Please sign our open letter to the Minister of Justice

The definition of racism must not be allowed to be manipulated to suit a political narrative.

Send a clear message to this Government that, no matter who the target is, racism will not be tolerated.

Thank you for helping us spread the message that the foundation of our democracy is under attack. 

At the 11th hour yesterday evening, after making it through the legal department, the Herald agreed to publish our advertisement. 

This is not just a silly stunt. We need to have more New Zealanders aware that our democratic rights are being threatened, and once lost, will be hard to recover. 

Our rights and protections, as equal citizens, are being taken away. The undermining of our democratic rights was confirmed when the Minister of Local Government Kieran McAnulty, said: 

"There are provisions in our laws around the Treaty that aren’t democratic..There are provisions that we have in this country that wouldn’t stand up to a purely academic democratic framework.

But that’s not how we work in New Zealand." 

He is wrong! This is how we work in New Zealand – one person, one vote. 

As mentioned last week, we have important issues to talk about before this election. Front of mind for every New Zealander, going into this election, must be the protection of your democratic rights. 

We are seeing, every day, what a dangerous road we walk down, when we differentiate the rights of entire groups of people based on ethnicity. Allocating guilt and the status of the oppressor to one, allocating victimhood and special rights to another. 

It does not work and has never worked, anywhere in the world. 

Don’t let this Government divide us further. 

Together we are making a difference. We are exposing the failure of these destructive race-based policies and divisions. 

It is through your help and support that we can force the uncomfortable conversations and hold this Government to account. 

We must not allow our democratic rights to be traded for political capital at this election. Each of us has issues and concerns that affect our day-to-day lives, but that does not justify the Government determining that race is the differentiating factor that elevates some issues above others. 

Whether it is labelled partnership or co-governance the foundation is a manipulation of our democracy.

This Government is using race-based division to alter our democratic rights and gain traction through flawed and dangerous legislation. One Person, One Vote, is exactly how we work in New Zealand. 

And remember, on October 14th the voters strike back ………..

Recent events have shown that not all racism is treated equally in New Zealand and that senior members of the Government perceive that some people don't ‘qualify’ as victims of racism.

A few weeks ago, I sent an Official Information Act request asking ministers to define racism as it relates to their portfolios. What should have been a straightforward question was met with further proof that ministers like Kiri Allan don’t actually have any clue what racism is. Or, alternatively, they aren't willing to share it with voters.

The Justice Minister’s office claimed that it isn’t their responsibility, under the OIA, to ‘create’ a definition where it doesn't exist. It seems strange that her ministry wouldn't have a definition for it given they have a 'National Plan Against Racism' as a 'Key Initiative' on their website.

We have received similar replies from ministers Nanaia Mahuta, Willow-Jean Prime, and Rino Tirikatene. We are still to hear back from the rest.

Without a definition, how do they have any idea what they are actually fighting?

It's unsurprising that New Zealand's Race Relations Commissioner has been evasive and selective in his role too. 

We recently learnt that not only did Meng Foon donate to Kiri Allan's 2020 election campaign, but his wife is effectively the minister's landlord (with heavy discounts) for her local electorate office. This is significant because Allan is the minister responsible for the Race Relations Commissioner.

At a Cabinet level and throughout our public service, it seems to have become the political consensus that racism is a tool to be used to justify the undermining of our democracy. This Labour Government has based legislation and policy on a foundation of racism.

New Zealanders are now afforded different rights determined only by race.

And to avoid any criticism of their race based policies, we do not even have a definition of racism. Even whether you can be a victim of racism is dependent on whether you're seen as the 'right' race.

We cannot allow our nation to be divided into brown and white; or as we are led to believe victim vs oppressor.

If we are to stop the division of our nation by race, then we need clarity from this Government as to what it means and to hold them accountable. All New Zealanders must be afforded the same rights and protections regardless of colour.

We need to make our voices heard. Our Government needs to be held to account. They need to know that we do not tolerate any form of racism, no matter who it is targeted at.

SIGN OUR OPEN LETTER TO MINISTER OF JUSTICE KIRI ALLAN

Just the other week, Marama Davidson claimed she knows “who causes violence and it's cis white men”.

This comment should have sparked outrage, but her party stood by her, defending unacceptable and racist comments. The Prime Minister stood by her!

Her comments were provably false as, unfortunately, violence is present in all cultures and ethnicities. Yet we didn't hear a peep from the people who have been banging the "misinformation" drum at the drop of a hat. 

Can you imagine if this was said about another race?

We have seen time and time again that the Government is selective about when it takes racism seriously.

And it goes beyond the Government.

Not long ago, I wrote an open letter criticising Tusiata Avia’s racist poetry and tried to get it published in one of New Zealand’s biggest newspapers, only to be told we can’t call her racist – even though her work is objectively racist.

The media uncritically mirrors the race-politics of those in power in New Zealand. We have few options for holding the Government to account.

However, in October, we have our best chance to send a message about the kind of country we want to live in. What we need to do is exercise the power of the election long before we step into the ballot box. 

We can do this by making clear to politicians what we will base our votes on. That means we simply must be more politically active than we have ever been before. We have a plan to put our messages in front of every politician and expose more Kiwis to our concerns.

For the next five and a bit months, we will be calling on our supporters to sign open letters, send emails, talk to their local MPs, and share our messages with everyone who will listen.

Today, we are asking you to sign our open letter to Minister Kiri Allan

The letter demands clarity around what this Government understands racism to be and calls on the  Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission to have zero tolerance for racism, no matter who (or what colour) the target.

If we can't agree on this simple thing, we can't have fruitful discussions about anything race-related. We need to be able to talk about matters like co-governance and what role the Treaty has in New Zealand in 2023. The ambiguity and tensions around race makes this so difficult.

This year has already been hectic, and it is only going to ramp up as we get closer to October 14th. We are ready for the battles ahead, but we can only succeed with supporters like you alongside us.

You may remember that last year, on May the 4^th, we published this advert in the New Zealand Herald.

The advert played with the famous line from the Star Wars movie “May the Force be with you”, emphasising that our democracy was under attack.

Predictably we received advertising complaints and were accused of scaremongering, but the advert was hard to miss, with even left-leaning media unable to ignore the democratic issue.

I am asking for your help to reinforce the message that our democracy is not a tradeable commodity for political gain. It is only through spreading the word to other Kiwis that we will be able to combat this attack on the foundations of our constitution. 

You will recall that our concerns about democracy were scoffed at by our then Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, when she stated that the one person, one vote was “overly simplistic”.

Now, Minister of Local Government Kieran McAnulty has confirmed the Government’s continued contempt for democracy when he said:

“There are provisions that we have in this country that wouldn’t stand up to a purely academic democratic framework but that’s not how we work in New Zealand.”

MCANULTY IS COMPLETELY WRONG, THAT IS HOW WE WORK IN NEW ZEALAND – ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.

Democracy is the foundation of that equal consideration – one person, one vote. However, our elected representatives apparently have no understanding of this democratic principle.

We have one of the proudest democratic credentials in the world, with every person having voting rights as early as 1893. We can no longer take our democracy for granted, so we need to engage with a much broader audience before this year’s election.

To launch this discussion, we want to revisit our May the Fourth advertising as the first stage in a series of actions defending our democracy and equality before the law.

Can you help us spread this message? Commit to telling 3 friends or family members this weekend about what is going on. 

Since we last highlighted that our democracy was under attack New Zealand has seen, to highlight a few issues:

1. Legislated unelected representation by Ngai Tahu onto the Canterbury Regional Council
2. Segregated of our health system by race
3. Over 80,000 submissions about 3 Waters dismissed by the Local Government Minister because they largely said the “same thing”
4. Unelected 50% governance arrangements in the control of water despite extensive opposition
5. Closed select committee submissions, excluding public engagement, about the renaming of New Zealand to Aotearoa

It is only through democracy that we can hold our elected representatives to account. When power and authority get handed to those who carry no cost for decisions, it's too late.

We need to write to the Leader of the Opposition and express our disappointment.

A few days ago, National MP Joseph Mooney tweeted that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed tino rangatiratanga (self-determination, sovereignty, independence, autonomy) to all the people of New Zealand.

He even quoted Professor Hugh Kawharu’s translation of the Māori version of the Treaty which is published on the Waitangi Tribunal’s website.

Have a look at his tweets and see if you think anything is wrong with what he said:

As tends to happen on Twitter, a small mob of professionally outraged people piled in to tell him he was wrong, stupid, and a “white supremacist”.

What should have been just another case of a pointless skirmish online, turned into something bigger, however. The perpetually online mainstream journalists spotted the interaction and decided the tweets were a cancel-worthy crime. They went to National Party leader Christopher Luxon with their disapproval and asked for his comment.

Now, if you recently saw how Marama Davidson was defended by her party, and by the Prime Minister, for her vile comments about ‘cis, white men’ committing all the violence in the world, you might expect that Luxon and National would be even more voracious in their defence of their MP given all he did was quote the Treaty from the Waitangi Tribunal website. Unfortunately, that is not how it played out.

Christopher Luxon waited for one of the few buses in Wellington that actually run on time and chucked his spokesperson for Treaty Negotiations under it. Sure, he said he still had confidence in Mooney, but he also said, “I think Joseph got it wrong on this occasion”. Got what wrong, Christopher? What part of what Joseph Mooney tweeted was wrong?

Of course, the media have made a song and a dance about it, trotting out academics to castigate the poor man. They even took to reporting on the criticism he was receiving on Twitter (they published the below tweet). Newshub and Stuff both quoted an academic who claimed that (shock horror!) Joseph Mooney appeared to be echoing Dr Don Brash!

Where is National’s backbone? Are they going to stand for anything remotely different to the co-governance narrative Labour is doubling down on?

New Zealanders are entitled to be able to have discussions about the Treaty and its implications for everyone without the media being bullies and strong-arming political parties. Political parties need to be resilient enough to not dance to the media’s every tune.

At the moment, Kiwis are faced with more divisive co-governance policies and unequal democracy no matter what happens at the election in October. We need to show National and Luxon how many votes are up for grabs for a party that stands up for democracy and equality.

We haven’t put together a fancy website for this as we just want to get feedback to National as soon as possible, so we are just asking that you send an email to Christopher Luxon and Party President Sylvia Wood letting them know that you support Joseph Mooney and find their lack of support for him appalling. Call on them to show leadership and stand up to those who steamroll debates about the Treaty.

Click here to send an email to Christopher and Sylvia.

We will be writing to National ourselves to urge them to show some courage and speak up for an equal and unified New Zealand.

Have you seen what Chris Hipkins is doing to Three Waters?

Not a lot from the looks of things! Apart from increasing the number of entities and renaming it "Affordable Water Reforms".

Incredible.

Our Prime Minister is reiterating his contempt for the vast numbers of New Zealanders who object to Three Waters.

He must think we are all fools if he thinks that a quick rebrand is going to appease us. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.

Crucially, for those of us who champion democracy and value equal rights, co-governance remains totally embedded in the reforms. Nothing has changed, {{recipient.first_name_or_friend}}. 

Different name, same divisive and regressive policies. 

Local Government Minister Kieran McAnulty said in a press release today:

"Every district council in the country will have a say and representation over their local water services entities through regional representative groups, forming a partnership between council representatives and iwi/Māori that will provide strategic oversight and direction to the entities."

And while he goes on to say they will "continue to sit below the governance board" we already know what that means in practice. It means 50% of the decision making voices will be unelected and unaccountable to a democratic process.

This means that we can expect that the hypocritical accusations of racism directed at opponents of the reforms will continue and our work is well and truly cut out for us because this Government is doubling down.

We aren't afraid to stand up for what is right though. We all have that hill we are willing to die on and for me it is defending a democratic New Zealand that values the rights of each person equally.

The Fight Against Racism fund is still open for donations and every dollar allows us to get our messages in front of more Kiwis. 

There's plenty of time until October and I hope we can count on your continued support in the fight.

More than ever before, race is being centred in every conversation the Government has about policy and legislation. No minister seems to be able to resist the pull to racialise whatever bill or policy they are championing.

It is divisive and toxic, making it harder and harder for New Zealanders to come together, despite our differences, to discuss matters that have significant impact on our lives.

Speaking on The Hui yesterday, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins attacked those opposing the Three Waters legislation as being perpetrators of “dog whistle racism”.

You can watch the interview here. I recommend taking a few deep breaths first!

Hipkins goes on to reiterate his contempt for the vast numbers of New Zealanders who object to Three Waters, suggesting any criticism is about ignorance or bigotry, rather than poor legislation.

“When you talk to many people about [Three Waters] they don’t really understand what the water infrastructure changes that we’re proposing are, they’ve just heard the sort of dog whistle racism that’s associated with it.”

With alarming frequency this Government avoids criticism of its poor legislation and bad policy by employing the tactic of accusing their opponents of racism. Ironically, by doing this they are perpetuating race-based division of New Zealanders. 

This agenda strengthened by a deliberate distortion of our nation’s history which, despite extensive criticism from highly-respected academics, has now become part of our children's national education curriculum. Concerns about the fantastical and revisionist content have been steadfastly ignored.

This separating of New Zealanders into categories of victims and oppressors that we see in our schools has already spread into society via our universities.

Last week, Newsroom published a book review that discussed this topic before straying into criticism of Dr Don Brash and Hobson’s Pledge.

Read the review here. Again, take a few deep breaths before you read it!

The article confirmed (quite unintentionally) many of our concerns about the distortion of New Zealand's history and the author appeared to be suffering some cognitive dissonance when he wrote: “historical literacy and awareness is the enemy of ill-informed bigotry.”

Surprisingly or unsurprisingly (depending on how cynical you are), despite the personal criticism of Dr Don Brash in the article, he has been denied a right of reply by Newsroom editor Jonathan Milne who stated:

“It’s a book review. Book reviews are meant to be opinionated. If we start getting into tit-for-tats over views expressed in book reviews, and theatres reviews, and restaurant reviews, then I don’t think we’ll be serving anyone well.”

The article’s author totally misrepresents our purpose which is simply to defend equality of citizenship and oppose racism in all its forms.

Well, Don decided to write a response anyway and we're sharing it with you at the end of this email. It is essential reading at a time when our Government is so determined to accuse their critics of racism in an attempt to avoid the real issues with its bad legislation and policy.

We are continuing to work on our campaign against racial attacks against New Zealanders, despite mainstream media blocking our print advertisements, to build awareness of repeated failures by ministers to treat New Zealanders equally and to condemn racism in all its forms.

We have not been defeated by the underhanded tactics of those in power and hope we can count on your continued support as we demand an equal standard of citizenship for all.

DON'S RESPONSE: VINCENT O’MALLEY AGAIN (April 2023)

Once again, Vincent O’Malley is promoting a radically distorted version of New Zealand’s history (Newsroom, 5 April 2023). Normally I ignore his nonsense but on this occasion his distortions directly involve me.

He asserts that in 2004 “then Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash, delivered a blistering attack on race-based privileges for Maori and the ‘Treaty grievance industry’ during his notorious speech to the Orewa Rotary Club… Brash narrowly lost the 2005 election as a result of which his promises to tear up Treaty settlements and end Maori ‘privilege’ came to naught.”

Yes, I certainly argued in that speech that all New Zealanders, irrespective of ancestry, should be equal before the law. But I explicitly did not advocate “tearing up Treaty settlements”. Indeed, I urged that Treaty settlements should be accelerated and in the 2005 election campaign I argued that they should be finished within six years because, as long as they dragged on, they did two kinds of damage.

They created the (erroneous) belief on the part of many European New Zealanders that the Treaty settlements were of enormous size, and of course relative to government spending they were not. And they created a totally false expectation on the part of too many Maori that once a settlement had been reached the gap between average Maori living standards and the living standards of other New Zealanders would miraculously disappear.

I pointed out in that Orewa speech that once guns fell into Maori hands in the early years of the 19^th century, ancient tribal rivalries saw Maori kill more of their own than the number of all New Zealanders lost in World Wars I and II. Probably 30,000 Maori were killed by Maori in the 1820s and 1830s. (I don’t see much evidence that this will be a focus of the new History curriculum.)

Equally, however, I noted that the initial Maori contact with Europeans was hardly a contact with the cream of European civilisation. The first Europeans that Maori encountered were explorers, whalers, escaped convicts from Australia, and then settlers hungry for land to build a new life. Many were none-too concerned about the niceties of the Treaty. 

Any dispassionate look at our history shows that self-interest and greed featured large on both sides. Pakeha tried hard to separate Maori from their lands, and usually succeeded, although at various points the Crown endeavoured to ensure that proper procedures, consistent with the Article 2 guarantee to Maori that they were able to sell freely and fairly, were upheld.

Yet in spite of these problems, and in spite of all the turmoil, the shocks from the collision of two cultures and the chaos of unprecedented social change, the documentary evidence clearly shows that Maori society was immensely adaptable, and very open to new ways. That adaptability and resourcefulness, that openness to opportunity, that entrepreneurial spirit, is something that survived the trauma of colonisation, and is today reflected in a Maori renaissance across a wide range of business, cultural and sporting activity.

We should celebrate the fact that, despite a war between a minority of Maori tribes and the government in the 1860s and the speed with which Maori were separated from much of their land – partly through settler greed, partly through a couple of generations of deficient leadership by some Maori – our Treaty is probably the only example in the world of any such treaty surviving rifle shots. Those who said a hundred years later that New Zealand possessed good race relations by world standards weren't wrong. While we try to fix the wrongs of the past, we should celebrate the good things and shared experiences that underpin our nationhood.

All Maori got the right to vote, and had it long before 1900. Indeed, all Maori men got the vote before most European men did. By the 1930s, Maori possessed equal rights of access to state assistance, be it pensions or subsidised housing loans or access to education. One standard of citizenship was gradually working, and the gaps that existed in every other colonial country were closing here as Maori took advantage of full employment.

Although he listed a number of land grievances in his centennial speech at Waitangi on 6 February 1940, Sir Apirana Ngata told those present that in the whole world it was unlikely that any “native” (his word) race had been as well treated by settlers as Maori.

Let me be quite clear. As I frankly acknowledged in that Orewa speech, many things happened to the Maori people that should not have happened. There were injustices, and the Treaty process is an attempt to acknowledge that, and to make a gesture at recompense. But it is only that.  It can be no more than that.

Despite the injustices and the mistakes, most Maori New Zealanders are undoubtedly better off today than they would have been had New Zealand never been discovered by Europeans. Indeed, I would contend that to argue the contrary is to be wilfully blind. European settlement ended slavery, cannibalism, and inter-tribal warfare. It brought the common law, the wheel, and metal tools. It brought a written language, new forms of protein, and new building materials.  And one of the most obvious results has been a more than doubling of life expectancy for Maori New Zealanders.

That Maori New Zealanders now prosper in every walk of life is obvious to any casual observer. Three years ago, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party were Maori; the Leader and Deputy Leader of New Zealand First were Maori; the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party was Maori; the Co-Leader of the Greens was Maori; and the Leader of the ACT Party was Maori. And nobody thought that was odd.

Vincent O’Malley and his radical friends may be reluctant to admit it but the reality is that New Zealand has absolutely no future unless it acknowledges what Article III of the Treaty made abundantly clear, that all New Zealanders have equal rights and responsibilities.

We didn't have to wait long for another example of gross racism from a Government official...This time a Minister of the Crown!

This weekend, Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence Marama Davidson proudly declared on camera: “I am the prevention [of] violence Minister, and I know who causes violence in the world, and it’s white cis men.”

As alarming as it is to once again be confronted by how easily and happily our Government differentiates us based on skin colour, it is also an example of how this kind of racialised politics doesn't help anyone.

It certainly doesn't help all of the victims of family violence that was not caused by a white man. Does the minister not consider them in her work? New Zealand has some of the worst statistics for family violence in the OECD!

Her abhorrent statement is actually receiving endorsement from groups and individuals who clearly have a warped and inaccurate picture of the world and no understanding of how family violence dominates our violent crime statistics.

If Chris Hipkins fails to sanction Minister Marama Davidson, he will be demonstrating that his Government endorses racism and hateful behaviour so long as it is directed at the 'right' people.  

Last week our Prime Minister boldly proclaimed: “My message is anybody exercising their right to free speech, whatever the circumstances are, should be mindful we don’t want to incite hateful behaviour or violence, in fact its illegal to do so, and I think everyone should bear that in mind.”

What will he say about a minister of his Government inaccurately painting a racial group as a unique threat to the safety of New Zealanders? 

Our Government and media see no harm in dividing New Zealanders by skin colour, inferring different rights dependant on which side of the classification you stand.

While every effort is being made to convince us that the delivery of public services will be enhanced by racially split governance arrangements, it is clear that this is a wedge that is being used to divide our diverse population.

When legislation and policy establish systems that do not demand the delivery of better outcomes, but do demand that citizens be treated differently based on race, is it really surprising that a minister would voice those same stigmatising views? 

Violence and issues of law and order are serious concerns for New Zealand as we see gun violence and gang crime escalate. The Government has been unapologetically soft on crime and now their failed policies are bearing the fruit of unsafe communities. How convenient that ministers like Marama Davidson can blame colonisation and "white cis men" for the situation instead!

It seems that this racism will continue unless we do something about it. The time to stand up to racism in all its forms is now. 

Will you join the fight?

I denounce Marama Davidson’s claims. They are blatantly false. All kinds of New Zealanders are represented in the crime statistics. Yes, men commit a lot more violent crimes than women, but "white cis men" are far from the only perpetrators. 

With over 14 years of police service, mostly in South Auckland, I witnessed violence and incomprehensible cruelty. Allocating accountability to a skin colour is offensive to the victims, to the vulnerable, and to those who are trying to deliver solutions. Not to mention to men who happen to have white skin!

• When we called for the Race Relations Commissioner to denounce racism and the endorsement of violence against people of white skin, the response was an eerie silence.
• When we expressed concern about the potential for increased intolerance and violence, the Race Relations Commissioner used the defence of the “trauma of colonisation”.
• When we tried to go public and expose the lack of accountability and lack of response from Meng Foon, NZME refused to publish our commentary through paid advertising.
• When we demand equality before the law, we are confronted with legislation that is founded on differentiating rights based upon when your ancestors arrived in the country.
• When we demand a conversation about co-governance, it is we who are called racist.
• Enough is enough: we cannot allow our nation to be ripped apart by those who hide behind a shield of faux-moral superiority.

We are in an election year and as the political posturing gains momentum we must send a clear message that we have had enough. We cannot allow the media and those seeking to be elected to tell us what the election issues this year will be. We must tell them what matters to us. 

Join the fight to end racism. All racism. Not just Marama Davidson's version. 

A fair and equal New Zealand that tolerates no racism, of any kind, is my bottom line.

Every New Zealander must be afforded the same dignity and respect. The same rights. 

With your help and continued support our voice can only grow louder. 

Taxpayer money was used to fund violently racist content and with your support we forced the Race Relations Commissioner to not only acknowledge it, but to say he personally does not agree with it.

You can read the Race Relations Commissioner's statement here.

We are actually still engaged in a battle with media companies to get the letter printed! It has been with the "legal department" at NZME for a number of days now and we are getting radio silence... 

Even our offer of a legal opinion as to whether the letter breaches advertising standards hasn’t been accepted.

This is incredibly frustrating, but while the pearl clutchers search for reasons to silence us, we have continued to push forward in exposing this hateful racism.

Undeterred by the New Zealand media's attempts to ignore us, we had an opinion piece published in the Spectator Australia on the matter. 

Initially, in response to the number of complaints the Human Rights Commission has received relating to Tusiata Avia's racist poetry, Meng Foon was dismissive and the Human Rights Commission simply posted a statement on their website that provided justification for the racism on the grounds of hurt caused by colonialism.

This response was appalling, so we were preparing to write to Justice Minister Kiri Allan as the Human Rights Commission falls under her responsibility. We intended to fill her in on our significant concerns about the failure of Commissioner Meng Foon to approach his role impartially and without prejudice. 

At Waitangi this year, Minister Kiri Allan said that we cannot let another generation of New Zealanders grow up with racism. Our hope was that she would remember this.

But then Meng Foon made the Human Rights Commission's second statement!

Prior to this statement, the commissioner had made it clear that he was willing to stand up for victims of racism only when it suits his own discriminatory views, leaping on any small skirmish and commenting in the media about every microaggression, except when the target of the racism was white.

It is a substantial improvement for Meng Foon to say:

"I personally do not agree with the tone of the piece, the words used and the imagery it evokes."

"I will continue to advocate for vulnerable communities and promote positive race relations, hold people to account, and help inform and educate New Zealanders around human rights."  

"I will be reaching out to Creative NZ, the Classifications Office and Stuff Media, among other parties, to discuss this matter further."

However, we aren't letting the commissioner off the hook completely as his refusal to explicitly call the poem "racist" demonstrates that he still doesn't think white people can be the target of racism. His careful choice of words are very telling. He does not say "this is racist", he says "this has caused offence to some people who may consider it to be racist."

Additionally, he seems to express some empathy for the racist poet's position saying: "I feel for those who have been, and continually are, impacted by the trauma of colonisation."

The future of our country must be one where New Zealanders of all backgrounds can prosper. We should all strive for mutual respect of other cultures and a society free of discrimination.

Unfortunately, Commissioner Foon has not been working towards that future. He has provided cover for those endorsing hatred and discrimination towards white New Zealanders. This statement is a step in the right direction, but he still has a long way to go in demonstrating that he is committed to fostering racial harmony among all New Zealanders.

We will continue to hold Commissioner Foon to account, but we now turn our focus to following up our request for an investigation into racism at Creative NZ. Our letter to Minister Carmel Sepuloni was palmed off to Associate Minister Willow-Jean Prime who has not responded. We will be following this up as a matter of urgency. 

Over the past two weeks we have been fighting against a tide of racism that has opened a wound and exposed that even our Race Relations Commissioner believes we are nation of white versus brown.

In our efforts, and with the generous donations of our supporters, we sought to publicise the issue through paid advertisements in newspapers nationwide.

To date NZME have refused to approve the advertisement. They have said it is with their legal department and they are "making changes".

This is what they refuse to publish...

They seem to think they're entitled to rewrite a letter we have already sent to the Race Relations Commissioner!

While the Commissioner admitted to personal concerns about the content of Tusiata Avia’s work, he still refuses to classify it as 'racist'. In a further insult he went on to patronisingly say in a media interview that “white people still have a lot to offer New Zealand”.

His determination that New Zealand is a nation of brown and white is at the core of the division forced upon us.

Despite the inept silence from the Commissioner, the Prime Minister spoke out this week clarifying the position (albeit on a different matter):

“My message is anybody exercising their right to free speech, whatever the circumstances are, should be mindful that we don’t want to incite hateful behaviour or violence, in fact it's illegal to do so, and I think everyone should bear that in mind.”

However, it is more abhorrent when the incitement to violence was funded by your tax dollars.

Our complaint to the Ministry of Arts, Culture and Heritage regarding the funding by Creative NZ has managed only to achieve an acknowledgement with no official response received. We initially contacted the minister, Carmel Sepuloni, but she palmed us off to her Associate Minister Willow-Jean Prime. 

Of further concern is the appointment of Claire Charters, chairperson of the working group that produced the He Puapua Report, to the Human Rights Commission to lead work on Indigenous People’s rights.

Claire has gone on record to be critical of New Zealand’s democracy and race relations. The He Puapua report was founded on the view of a separate state for some New Zealanders based upon their ancestry.

It is this agenda of differentiation based upon skin colour that is an affront to thinking New Zealanders who want to see us all respected and treated equally before the law.

The division of our wonderful country into a bi-cultural identity of Maori and the rest is a tragedy for all of us. Don Brash wrote about this recently, asserting that New Zealand is reaching a crisis point. You can read the article here.

It is hard not to despair.

But with your support we are continuing to push back against this justification of racism if your skin colour is classified as white.

Hobson’s Pledge are challenging this Government’s position on racism. We are preparing a campaign exposing the failure of the Race Relations Commissioner and which will force NZME to clarify their position so that we can present this issue to a wider audience of New Zealanders.

We have had some good news though! Auckland City Council has voted to pull out of the radical and anti-democratic sector body Local Government New Zealand. You might remember the separatist changes to council standing orders we opposed that LGNZ attempted to slide under the radar last year.

With our biggest city saying "no thank you" to the LGNZ agenda, here's hoping we'll see steps towards the strengthening of local democracy.

🚨BREAKING NEWS!

This is an update on the 'Rotorua Bill'. You might remember that last year we called on our supporters like you to speak out against a bill that would have seen equal democracy in Rotorua effectively end.

Through your support, a massive 13,000 submissions were made to the select committee on the matter which resulted in the bill being “paused” in April last year.

Now The Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) bill has lost the support of the council itself!

Rotorua Lakes Council have voted to withdraw support for the legislation that would have marked the end of equal suffrage in New Zealand.

After the local government elections last year, newly elected Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell expressed that she shared many of the same concerns our supporters raised about the bill. Now that her Council has voted to withdraw support for this controversial legislation, Mayor Tapsell will advise the Māori Affairs Select Committee of the decision. 

The Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) bill sought to ignore the foundational principle of democracy that every vote is worth the same. With 21,700 people in the proposed Māori ward and 55,600 in the proposed general ward each ward would elect three councillors. In effect, the general ward would get a normalised 58% of the representation that the population in the Māori ward would get.

This legislation was being railroaded through Parliament shepherded by Labour's Māori Caucus and, had it not been for the public outcry, it would have become law.

We celebrated the victory that the bill was paused back in April, but it is the continuation of pressure from supporters like you that has resulted in the Rotorua Lakes Council withdrawing their support.

It is your support, and that of 140,000 other New Zealanders, that makes victories like this possible. 

Click here to chip in to the 2023 Election Fund

New Zealand has a proud history as a multi-cultural nation. It is inherent in our nature as New Zealanders to be tolerant, accepting and supportive of each other and especially those in need.

Successive governments' policies and bad legislation are driving a wedge between us and forcing racial division that none of us signed up for. The images and stories coming out of local communities in the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle are evidence of who we are as a nation. A nation of people who pitch in and help each other when times are tough. 

Hobson’s Pledge continue to make sure your voice is heard and demand better outcomes for all New Zealanders. We cannot afford to be complacent with an election fast approaching. It is crucial that whoever our next Government is, they will not allow us to be treated differently based upon when we or our ancestors came to New Zealand.

This year is critical for us and the announcement today shows that democracy works when we speak up for it. That is why it is so important we continue to defend it.

You may recall from our last email on this issue that LGNZ sends a guide to Standing Orders, along with a template to use, to councils at the start of each term and that this year they have made significant changes from the last version in 2019, without announcement, fanfare, or scrutiny from the media.

We told you then that these new guidelines assert a new special status in decision making for Maori and iwi that will limit the democratic authority of those who were elected by the voters at large (which included Maori).

LGNZ have a role, ultimately funded by ratepayers, to advise councils. With these guidelines, however, they have recommended divisive, anti-democratic approaches to council decision-making processes that are not only not required by law (as they heavily inferred) but may well breach the law.

We were so concerned about the claims and recommendations pushed by LGNZ that Hobson’s Pledge engaged prominent public law firm Franks Ogilvie to provide a legal opinion on the advice provided.

Their report can be found here.

It makes a compelling case for rejecting the LGNZ advice. I can particularly recommend the summary from paragraphs 4 to 11.

Hobson's Pledge have sent this report to all local and regional councillors and mayors in New Zealand, so they are armed with the case for equal citizenship in their councils rules.

Some may ask, why is this important?

Simply, it is because at the foundation of our democracy lies the assurance that every vote holds equal value and every citizen has equal access to their governing institutions.

An election is the opportunity for we, the people, to deliver accountability from our elected representatives. After that election, no one should get in ahead of the rest to set the agenda or screw the scrum.

LGNZ’s Standing Orders guidelines are promoting a form of co-governance that goes beyond mere consultation, attempting to incorporate an obligation to unelected representation.

You might expect a dramatic change in the law from Parliament or a policy change from the Government to cause this kind of shift in how LGNZ's Standing Orders guide is written, but none of that has occurred. They're simply making it up as they go.

LGNZ are promoting co-governance by stealth with dire legal and democratic implications.

Their advice holds weight with your councillors, who will have assumed LGNZ have provided reliable guidance.

That's why we've presented the Franks Ogilvie advice, so your councillors will know equal citizenship is on the line here.

Before our democracy is eroded further, LGNZ should be required to explain on what legal basis they have advised councils of this new approach.

Already, some councillors are replying, thanking us for raising the issue and saying they will be pushing back at their next council meetings.

Today, Three Waters was rammed through Parliament to become law.

Ignoring the lack of clarity, the outright mistakes, the many deceptions, the failures to follow due process and the concerns of nearly 100,000 New Zealanders - the controversial Water Services Entities Bill (AKA Three Waters) has been forced through by Labour.

No other party – not even the Greens or the Maori Party – voted for it.

As the media and most politicians dance around the central issue, Hobson’s Pledge will continue to clearly declare that the control of everyone’s water has been handed over to an unelected and unaccountable co-governed minority.

A minority who claims its dishonest mandate by virtue of their ancestry alone, while also being unaccountable to their own people. A doubled-edge sword piercing the very heart of our democracy.

Labour's blatant lies around 'ownership' are now irrelevant – let me be as clear as the water Mahuta is stealing, New Zealanders now have no control of their own water assets.

The justification given for this legislation was the claimed need for urgent investment in infrastructure and fear-mongering about water quality.

It has long since been clear that, in fact, this was and will remain a clear, naked and blatant power grab to transfer control of public resources to a select group of Maori, as foreshadowed by the infamous He Puapua Report.

This is clearly the ambition of He Puapua come to life, enshrined into New Zealand law. 

What has been delivered is a complex bureaucracy that will operate, for at least half of the water entity boards, without any direct accountability to the people of New Zealand. And that half will have an effective veto, as the only ways to make decisions are either by consensus or by 75% majority.

Make no mistake, this is a dark day for New Zealand –

Our voices have been ignored

Unworkable and divisive legislation has been passed into law

No accountability has been delivered for countless mistakes and deceptions

Our democracy has been dismantled

Your support for the work Hobson’s Pledge is doing has become more important than ever.

As a nation, we are being reduced to “us” and “them”. We cannot allow this to continue or let this Government’s powerful Labour Maori Caucus operate unchecked like schoolyard bullies.

There is a better way. A way of living together where every New Zealander is equal under the law and the decisions about our collective property are taken by leaders accountable to the people at the ballot box and through public scrutiny by our institutions.

A way that is, in short, the promise of liberal democracy that is the heritage of all New Zealanders. A heritage that has been handed down to us by every generation before us.

Our Government is continuing to avoid accountability for failing to deliver a single positive outcome while it pushes through a storm of divisive legislation that it pretends will fix the failings of its spiralling and even more divided bureaucracy.

We know the Government does not speak for all New Zealanders, just as the Labour Maori Caucus and the Maori Party do not speak for all Maori.

Our mission now becomes to ensure severe democratic consequences for Jacinda Ardern, Nanaia Mahuta and Labour for this flagrant betrayal of our democracy.

Hobson’s Pledge will redouble our relentless efforts to make every New Zealander understand what is being done to their democracy and what that means for them and the country’s future. 

We have already moved co-governance from the issue that politicians would rather leave unmentioned to a major topic of debate (even in the mainstream media!). 

The next step is to make this theft of our democracy a key decisive issue for the next election – one that the major parties are forced to contend with at the ballot box.

We are currently planning our election year activity to push back against the division of New Zealanders euphemistically called "co-governance". This must be in front of every voter as politicians seek their votes.

It is more critical than ever that the average New Zealander understands just how dire the stakes are this coming election. Your support is essential in making this happen and bringing us back together.

I am delighted to tell you that our drive to publish our Open Letter to the Prime Minister in every major newspaper across New Zealand was successful.

Thank you to everyone who supported our efforts to make this reality - none of this would have been possible without you.

Together, hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are now well-informed about just how much Three Waters will further detrimentally divide our society.

Yesterday, I personally sent the Prime Minister our Open Letter with my own covering letter. You can click here to view what I sent the Prime Minister. 

But our fight is still not over. This Labour Government  is still planning to ram through the enabling legislation for Three Waters sometime before Christmas.

Fortunately, there is still time and we are the organisation that will be relentless in fighting this Government every step of the way as they seek to divide New Zealanders, when we should be moving forward together as one.

In this Update we cover the new attempts to erode democracy that are hijacking the reforms of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the further complications with Three Waters that are expanding the loss of democratic accountability from just water infrastructure to just about anything involving water.

*BREAKING NEWS*

Government undermines our constitutional foundations

But first, another controversy broke over the weekend as constitutional lawyers caught up with the unprecedented entrenchment amendment, under urgency, of the Three Waters legislation.

Under the cover of urgency and precluding any opportunity for public consultation or consideration by select committee, this Government has inserted a dangerous amendment into the Three Waters legislation at the last moment. 

In the Waters Services Entities Bill, there will now be a requirement for a super-majority of 60% of MPs to amend or repeal a particular section.

The use of a super-majority is normally used only in constitutional matters, such as the term of Parliament. The insertion in this instance demonstrates the Government’s total contempt for the will of the people and is a direct attempt to circumvent democracy. 

But, for now, back to the rest of the attacks on democracy.

The common thread for these is the insertion of new, unclear, and untested Maori words and concepts into our law, and then requiring compliance with these new concepts across complex and varying issues.

The uncertainty thrown up by this kind of law-making is causing havoc and the need for councils and courts to figure out what the law actually means will result in more delay and expense, along with less democracy and accountability.

RMA reform hijacked

The RMA reform announced last week was proudly introduced by Minister David Parker when he confirmed the introduction of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill.

While most parties agree reform is urgently needed, this already very complex area of law has two outrageous additions included by David Parker.

First, the new regional planning committees must have at least two Maori representatives on them. Not 50/50 co-governance as some were clamouring for, but still another undemocratic intrusion. And it turns out these committees can have 50/50 co-governance, if the relevant councils want them to – do you trust your council to stand up for your democracy?

Second, the new legislation contains a requirement that councils “recognise and uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.”

So we have another case of Maori words with a Maori concept being slipped into an English language Bill and an English legal framework.

This term, new to statute in New Zealand, is defined in the Bill but the scope is so broad that to suggest it will reduce complexity, as the Minister assures us, is naïve in the extreme.

Dr Oliver Hartwich, Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative, presented an excellent analysis of the legislation in his article in the Australian (paywalled).

He observes that “Tikanga is mentioned 31 times, Matauranga Maori comes up 26 times. Kaitiakitanga can be found in seven places. They all beat “property right”, which features only three times.

Dr Hartwich rightly observes that the Bill is taking the integration of purported Maori custom into the New Zealand legal system to a new level.

The nuanced definitions and attempts to recognise special interests are all underpinned by the so-called duty to give effect to the principles of The Treaty of Waitangi.

Besides the policy goals, each time this happens, everyone operating in the relevant space (and resource management affects everyone) is left uncertain of where the bounds of the new law are until the courts rule on it. But the courts also wind up with enormous space to define what these concepts mean, as there is very little in the way of agreed definition.

We the public lose direct democratic accountability over our politicians to achieve policy outcomes, as they hand over that power to the courts and new unaccountable bureaucracies with their vague law-making.

At least for now, we have the most direct form of democratic accountability still available to us, with a vote at the next election.

At the heart of each piece of new legislation or policy introduced by this Government – whether it is about education, health, water, environment, resource management, or local government – is a consistent and egregious fundamental principle, that New Zealanders are to be afforded different consideration based upon ancestry.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the rapid and almost overwhelming pace at which these changes are being foisted upon us is intentional.

Distract, Divide and Overwhelm is a sound strategy for any power grab.

Submissions on the Natural and Built Environment Bill close on 30 January 2023. Perhaps influenced by the 80,000+ submissions received on the Three Waters legislation, the Government is hoping that New Zealanders will be too busy and distracted to challenge yet another enormous piece of divisive legislation.

When asked directly, the Prime Minister cannot guarantee that non-Maori and Maori will have the same level of representation and openly states that she believes one person, one vote is an “overly simplistic” approach to democracy. For this reason alone, we must brace ourselves for another battle that demands New Zealanders are treated equally before the law.

The layers of racial bureaucracy will see the wheels of progress grind to a halt, our nation further divided and all of that for no better outcomes for those who are in need, Maori or otherwise.

The many waters of Mahuta

The complexity of Three Waters reached an even greater muddle of confusion due to the change introduced at the second reading on 16 November 2022. The Bill is now awaiting Third Reading and will likely become law before Christmas.

Now included in the Bill is additional clarification of how the Te Mana o te Wai (the respect or authority of the water) provision should be applied. This expands the potential scope of the complex, co-governed Three Waters bureaucracy out to the coast (that’s right, foreshore and seabed all over again), geothermal water, and hydroelectric facilities.

The ambition is galling.

When the water entities are already structured in a co-governance model, with elected representation forming only 50% of the boards, that added layer of the Te Mana o te Wai obligations results in a further reduction in the influence the democratic sphere will have over water. The Prime Minister is lying when she claims that there is no expansion in scope to the Three Waters legislation.

Layers of Representation

While every Government agency and all new legislation are inserting obligations to a certain interpretation of The Treaty of Waitangi, the radical changes to Local Government New Zealand’s guidelines to your Council’s Standing Orders are another direct assault on democracy.

It is important that silence not be seen as tacit acceptance or endorsement of these new proposed Standing Orders

Stand up for democracy and tell your Mayor to do the same by actively rejecting the divisive and anti-democratic proposal to change council Standing Orders.

Less than three weeks ago, Hobson’s Pledge publicised the new standing order guide from Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).

Standing Orders are the procedures that your council uses to conduct their meetings and the way they debate. Their purpose is to enable local authorities to exercise their decision making responsibilities in a transparent, inclusive, and lawful manner.

LGNZ send a guide to these standing orders, along with a template to use, to councils at the start of each term and they have made significant changes to this year’s guide from the last version in 2019, without announcement, fanfare, or scrutiny from the media.

These guidelines assert a new special status in decision making for Maori and iwi that will limit the democratic authority of those who were elected by the voters at large (which included Maori).

Tell your Mayor (and the Chair of your regional council, if you have one) to reject these radical and undemocratic changes at defenddemocracy.nz.

The new guidelines claim that iwi and hapu “have a mandate based on their role as the indigenous governors of the land”.

LGNZ does not explain how they came to these conclusions and, without a fundamental change in our constitutional law in the last three years, there is no legal basis for inserting this new status for iwi, even though they try to make it sound like councils have to comply.

You can read the guidelines here: StandingOrder_16_09_22.pdf (lgnz.co.nz)

Councils will be bureaucratically crippled in their decision-making by the cultural minefield that these recommended standing orders require.

Should your council adopt these guidelines there will be:

1. Different rights based for some based upon ancestry
2. More bureaucracy
3. Delays in decision making
4. Increased costs
5. Less accountability

As the newly elected mayors and councillors begin their work serving your community, it is essential that they are reminded of their responsibility to be representative of all their constituents.

Send a message at our easy to use tool and demand that everyone have an equal say in your community. We make it simple to find your mayor with just your postcode.

Our communities need to be inclusive and representative of all New Zealanders, regardless of their ancestry. Do not allow this radical manifesto to differentiate one group of New Zealanders ahead of the rest. We must not be divided against ourselves and this wedge of bureaucracy will do just that.  

Hobson’s Pledge is continuing to push back against racism and will continue demanding that all New Zealanders are treated equally before the law.

This update is a little longer than usual, to cover all the latest developments in the co-governance agenda.

*BREAKING NEWS*

But first, just yesterday Hobson's Pledge received a copy of the He Mata Whariki, He Matawhanui report on proposals for reform to local government in New Zealand. 

We are working through the details, but it is clear that another nail is being set for hammering in to the coffin of New Zealand's democratic heritage.

More than ever, it is clear we must defend unity and equal suffrage.

Watch this space.

Jackson's folly hits a predictable snag

Astoundingly, there are many New Zealanders who believe that co-governance is merely due recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi. In reality though, it is a failed social experiment that has been unable to deliver a tangible benefit to anyone, including Maori.

The inability to reach final decisions due to co-governance is crippling progress, as endless consultation and consensus decision-making (read giving one side a veto) has become the new norm.

This is evident in nearly every public service that is tasked with improving outcomes for New Zealanders.