It is becoming more apparent that New Zealand is on the road to racial separatism and, yes, eventually, racial segregation. The He Puapua report set out the general direction, and the momentum has been growing since it was published. Is this what New Zealanders want?
For those who have not been following the story, the He Puapua report, developed by Labour and kept secret until it leaked, outlined a road to an increasingly racially divided New Zealand to create an ethno-nationalist state. I will quote once again from Elizabeth Rata’s thoughtful piece on the topic:
Ethno-nationalism has political categories based on racial classification – the belief that our fundamental identity (personal, social and political) is fixed in our ancestry. Here the past determines the future. Identity, too, is fixed in that past. In contrast, democratic-nationalism has one political category – that of citizenship – justified by the shared belief in a universal human identity.
These two opposing approaches to how the nation is imagined, constituted and governed are currently in contention. We will have to choose which form of nationalism will characterise New Zealand by 2040.
The He Puapua Report describes our future as an ethno-nation. Its Vision 2040 Roadmap sets out a timeline for the transformational constitutional change which will divide the polity into “three streams: the Rangiratanga stream (for Maori), the Kawanatanga stream (for the Crown) and the Rite Tahi stream (for all New Zealanders)”.
The Ministry of Maori Development is, of itself, an odd idea. Why does a race-based ministry exist in the first place? Notwithstanding the oddity of the ministry, it has some very concerning publications on its website. One interesting example is a pdf document of FAQs on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The report makes explicit that the government will use He Puapua as the basis for the future direction of New Zealand governance and that there is a plan for fundamental changes to the New Zealand constitution (emphasis added):
In line with the EMRIP advice and He Puapua, and to be meaningful and effective, the action plan must be developed within a process that itself honours Te Tiriti and the Declaration, including partnership, tino rangatiratanga and the right of self determination.
The FAQs do not just cite the He Puapua report but also cite a report called Matike Mai Aotearoa. This report is an even clearer signal for moving to an ethno-Nationalist state. The following gives a flavour of the approach:
The Terms of Reference did not ask the Working Group to consider such questions as “How might the Treaty fit within the current Westminster constitutional system” but rather required it to seek advice on a different type of constitutionalism that is based upon He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti. For that reason this Report uses the term “constitutional transformation” rather than “constitutional change”.
The essence of the report is that it argues that there should be a special representation for Maori in the constitution, and the proposed models of the future constitution of New Zealand should raise major concerns. I have copied the proposed models for the constitution at the end of the post. Maori will have a special and privileged constitutional status in all cases, and the changes will move New Zealand to an ethno-nationalist state.
It would be easy to dismiss the reports as just talk, but it is becoming clearer that the reports are being enacted and form a foundation for policy. The citation of the reports in the FAQs is telling, but then so are actions. The Three Waters plan enacts He Puapua. The Maori Health Authority will create a separate and separatist healthcare system. There are plans to change common law to integrate Maori customary law. And now, there are calls for a Maori education authority which are, no doubt, pushing at an open door:
Key Māori educational leaders want to see a Māori education authority similar to the Māori Health Authority.
We are seeing that He Puapua and Matike Mai now have serious momentum behind them. The current Labour government is following the ideology of Wokeism to its logical conclusion. We are currently seeing an initial process of separatism, but these are early days. The ideology of Wokeism originates in the US, and we can see the direction of Wokeism there. I have written several times about examples of Wokeism followers reintroducing segregation between black and white in the US (e.g. see here). Segregation, it seems, is the end game. And all but the most extreme Wokeism followers do not want that.
Indeed, most New Zealanders will be against every part of this ethno-nationalist agenda. Also, I suspect that, outside of a small cohort of Wokeism extremists and power-hungry Iwi leaders, the vast majority of Maori would not want to see New Zealand become an ethno-nationalist state. Nevertheless, in plain sight, that is what is taking place. There is nothing as dangerous and divisive as politics based on race. The enacting and embedding of racial politics in New Zealand are ugly, foolish, and counterproductive.
Above all, every element of this dangerous shift in New Zealand politics could not be more racist. Even as the Wokeism activists scream that others are racist, their ideology is so racist that it would have made a supporter of apartheid in South Africa feel on familiar ground. So we need to answer the big question: will we let a minority of racist Wokeism nutters win and allow New Zealand to become an ethnostate?
At present, based on the groaning silence from the majority of New Zealanders, the answer is that they will win. Ordinary New Zealanders need to start to stand up and push back, but I fear not enough people will listen until it is too late.
Matike Mai Aotearoa – Quote, showing the proposed models:
- A tricameral or three sphere model consisting of an Iwi/Hapū assembly (the rangatiratanga sphere), the Crown in Parliament (the kāwanatanga sphere) and a joint deliberative body (the relational sphere).
- A different three sphere model consisting of an assembly made up of Iwi, Hapū and other representation including Urban Māori Authorities (the rangatiratanga sphere), the crown in Parliament (the kāwanatanga sphere), and a joint deliberative body (the relational sphere).
- A further three sphere model consisting of an Iwi/Hapū assembly (the rangatiratanga sphere), the Crown in Parliament (the kāwanatanga sphere), and regional assemblies made
up of Iwi, Hapū and Crown representatives (the relational sphere).
- A multi-sphere model consisting of an assembly of Iwi/Hapū and other Māori representation (the rangatiratanga sphere) and the Crown in Parliament (the kāwanatanga
sphere). It also includes a relational sphere which would have two parts – a constitutionally mandated set of direct Iwi/Hapū/Crown relationships to enable direct Iwi/Hapu-Crown decision-making plus a unitary perhaps annual assembly of broader Māori and Crown representation.
- A unicameral or one sphere model consisting of Iwi/Hapū and the Crown making decisions together in a constitutionally mandated assembly. This model does not have
rangatiratanga or kāwanatanga spheres. It only has the relational sphere.
- A Bicameral Model made up of an Iwi/Hapū assembly and the Crown in Parliament. This model has distinct rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga spheres but has no provision for a