The hypocrisy moves from laughable to dangerous, when our legislators publicly condemn racism, yet consistently pass bills (and have done for decades), that favours one ethnic group. They and their PR consultants can rationalise it all they want with appeals to the “Five Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” or how “Maori are tangata whenua”, but politically segregating people based on their race, is apartheid, however way you dress it up.  Racism is wrong when Maori were victims of it, and it is still wrong when Maori are beneficiaries of it.  Like the childhood story of The Emperors New Clothes, the public will eventually see through the propaganda and recognise that the system they are creating is in actual fact Apartheid in nature...and all those supporters of it, are therefore by definition...racists

The irony, is that in the long term, such separatist laws, does Maoridom no favours at all.  Their perceived “success” on the back of statutory advantages is in fact a failure to compete in a free and equal market.  Not only that, it breeds contempt from fellow Kiwis who are disadvantaged because they are not the right race.  To make matters worse, the disadvantaged kiwis are further burdened by having to fund, through their taxes and rates the careers and lifestyle of the beneficiaries of apartheid policies.

Of course not all Maoris have chosen to use these political advantages and do the best they can alongside everyone else, and this is to be commended.  Some have even chosen to leave their home for a fresh start overseas.  Free from the resentment or the “victim mentality” in New Zealand, they are succeeding in their endeavours for a better life.

The argument that Maori have a right to self govern is a valid one.  In a true republic, all sovereign individuals have that birthright.  But we can only govern what is our property, be it our thoughts, creations, body or land.  If the property was unlawfully taken, then the courts are where these disputes are settled. That was the purpose of Governor Hobson creating the Maori Land Courts after the signing of the treaty.   However if the land was legitimately sold, as was the case with a lot of maori land, then it is at that point in time, that all rights of access and influence over that land by Maori, ceased.    This is where it is all going so horribly wrong for New Zealand.

The justification for Maori claiming political control for land already sold, is the misguided notion that Te Tiriti O Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi) allows Maori equal partnership with the Crown.  This attitude has lead to New Zealanders of all ethnic backgrounds, funding the creation and maintenance of various maori agencies, organisations and government policies, some of which are listed below:

separate maori electorates (since 1863) separate maori tribunal for claims (Waitangi Tribunal, 1975) separate maori political party (Maori Party) separate maori positions in councils (Maori Advisory Board for Auckland City) separate maori tax rates (17.5% vs 30% for everyone else) separate maori television station (Maori Television Station) separate maori radio stations separate maori ministry (Te Puni Kokiri) separate maori broadcasting funding body (Te Mangai Paho, 1993)

Maori activists yell to all and sundry that pakeha (European) should “Honour the treaty! Honour the treaty! Honour the treaty!” But have they even read it? One would presume so otherwise why mention it?  Yet there is an obvious contradiction which can only be exposed by reading the document itself.

It must be pointed out that Article I of Te Tiriti O Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi) clearly states that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Queen.  From the point of view of a sovereign individual the treaty should be discarded for that one reason alone. But for the sake of this argument we’ll accept that.

The two most important points from Te Tiriti are:

• Article I clearly states Maori ceded sovereignty to the Queen.
• Article III Maori were granted equal rights and privileges as British subjects.

There is no equal partnership between Maori and the Crown to rule over pakeha subjects.   If any “partnership” exists, it is the hierarchal relationship between the sovereign Queen ruling over her subjects who were Maori and pakeha.

It appears clear to me that if anyone needs to honour the treaty, it should be the Maori activists and all those pushing for separatist laws!  All of them, both maori and pakeha alike, have ignored what is clearly written in the treaty and in doing so allowed into legislations, laws that violate it’s one and only principle, “He iwi e tahi tatou”, (We are one people).  These were the words repeated by Governor Hobson to each chief after they had placed their mark on Te Tiriti.

The problem is not so much what Te Tiriti actually says, it is what people believe it says.  And the cause of this confusion falls squarely at the feet of the Waitangi Tribunal.  Under Section 5(2) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the tribunal “shall have exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the 2 texts and to decide issues raised by the differences between them”.  So it doesn’t matter what you and I understand the treaty to say, which is simple enough... the only opinion that matters in the eyes of the law, is that of the Waitangi Tribunal.  The exclusive authority to determine the meaning is theirs and theirs alone.  If the tribunal decides that the treaty gives Maori equal partnership status with the Crown, even though that’s clearly a myth to any reasonable and honest New Zealander... then so be it.

One hundred and seventy one years, after Hobson uttered the words “He iwi e tahi tatou”, the newly formed Auckland super city is embroiled in racial controversy. Aucklanders have found themselves in the ridiculous position of having unelected members of the Maori Advisory Board with full voting rights on committee meetings!  To add insult to injury the Auckland ratepayers are funding them to the tune of $3.43 million! The embattled Mayor Len Brown is resigned to the fact that their position is protected by legislation.  The best he can do is call for a revision of the funding but even this will lead him into a court battle he cannot win.

As usual public attention is being misdirected.  The questions being asked is whether due process was followed and whether the amount was excessive.  By discussing these two points, one automatically accepts the legitimacy of apartheid.  It wouldn’t matter if the Advisory Board jumped through every bureaucratic hoop to get $3.43 cents!  There is absolutely no moral justification for unelected council positions with full voting rights...never mind the funding issue.  One common rhetoric being espoused, particularly by those with their snouts well and truly in the troughs, is that “it’s legislated!”, or that “the law is quite clear” and “we’re doing the best we can with what central government has given us”.   This is true, but apartheid was legislated in South Africa and is currently legislated in Israel.  Legal justification is not moral justification.  In fact many of the same people, who stood against apartheid South Africa during the 1981 Springbok Tour, are now shamelessly promoting race based public offices such as the unelected Maori Advisory Board and the race based, Maori Party.  This is nothing new.   The racist attitudes of these lobbyists and politicians have been allowed to permeate and infect our legislations over the last three decades thanks to the cancerous tumour we call the Waitangi Tribunal.   Whatever excuses our legislators have are irrelevant.  They are socially engineering this nation into a separatist state and it must stop.

=======================================================

I recently phoned one particular Maori talkback host who is renowned for his socialist/communist/separatist views.  As was expected he fully endorsed taxpayer funded, unelected Maori, having the right to determine public policy.  After three attempts and nearly an hour on hold, I was finally able to put to him one simple question.  “What do you consider yourself first and foremost, human or Maori?” This caught him totally off guard and left him momentarily speechless.  I took that opportunity to explain to him that although he is both... in terms of rights, one takes precedence over the other.  I’m unsure if I even started that explanation before I was abruptly cut off.  An hour on hold and roughly 10 seconds on air...censored for asking a simple question.  From the safety of his studio and free from debate, he pondered the question then rambled for a few seconds on the importance of his whanau (family).  He then admitted to his audience, live on national radio that he was Maori first, Human second.

And herein lies the fundamental problem.  It is not that Maori had property stolen, or were mistreated and taken advantage of in the past or even today.   It’s not even what they believe the treaty promises them.  The real problem is a philosophical one, one that breeds the attitude that one’s ethnicity comes first and humanity second.

The catch phrase for people with such attitudes is “we must empower our people”.   This is to be encouraged in an open and free society.  If on a level playing field maori excelled and rose to positions of power in every sector then that is to celebrated by everyone and I would be the first to commend them for their efforts.  But doing so by disempowering other people, who are not of the same race, is wrong.  This approach is self defeating for society as a whole.  State sanctioned racism in South Africa is a thing of the past, or at least on the surface and Israel today is much worse with its brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.  History has taught us, that separatist laws inevitably lead to a nation wide, bloody revolt.  If we allow this to continue in New Zealand, then everyone who helped create these racists laws, their supporters and even those amongst us who choose to remain silent....all these people, will have blood on their hands.

“Grand gestures and generous reparation may in the longer term be fuelling problems rather than mitigating them” David Lange in reference to treaty claims.  1942-2005