New Zealand often comes up, and as someone who emigrated here over twenty years ago, I’d echo the ‘pace of life’ advantages, along with the general scenery being fabulous.
However, literally yesterday, the Coalition government (Right/Centre Right) introduced a Bill to Parliament that parties on the Left are describing as racially hugely divisive. We’ll have an unusually long six month public consultation on it before the larger part of the Coalition promises to ‘kill’ it in debate, so many people consider the whole exercise as rather pointless.
All that is to say that the country’s relationship with maori (its indigenous population) appears to be experiencing a greater strain than in the past.
Economic forecasts aren’t particularly great, either. Long-term debt to fund healthcare, superannuation and basic infrastructure is on an unsustainable path unless radical change is made.
In conclusion, definitely not a ‘left-leaning paradise’.
And my hazy understanding is that NZ went through a series of neo-liberal economic reforms (privatisations, subsidy abolition, monetary policy control, small government in general) that still apply to some degree. So, liberal in one sense, but far from leftist.
Do you have more info on this? What exactly is the rule being changed? Or proposed for change, at least?
All I could find online is that there’s a treaty (between the settlers and Maori I guess?) and that there’s a party that doesn’t like that because right now only a Maori council has the legal rights to interpret the treaty, but they want it to be a bilateral agreement instead?
Presumably if it’s being treated as so “racially divisive” there’s something race related that they want to reinterpret in the treaty, I assume? But nowhere I could find actually explained what the point of contention is.
(Interestingly, this argument has - for me - echoes of the attitudes of those in Britain who object to court interpretations of our Human Rights Act (which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights). They argue that its application to various contentious situations were decisions that Parliament should decide on).
That’s the article I saw when I looked it up myself, and I was frustrated with how I felt it answered none of my questions.
This seems to be the meat of the issue according to the article:
But this is all exceedingly vague. It could mean anything from “there are laws that disproportionately benefit Maori and some reactionists don’t like that” all the way to “New Zealand is an Apartheid state where individuals are treated differently by the law based on their race”.
What exactly are the ways that Maori are treated differently by the law, and what is the justification for that?
Yes, the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between some (but not all) Maori chiefs and the British Crown in 1840. The original document was written in English, but translated into Maori - and it was that version that the Chiefs debated and signed. Some notable subsequent failures of the Crown to honour the property rights of Maori tribes led to the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, which has the power to advise the Crown of where historical breaches occurred. There is an ongoing process of government redress through returning land and providing compensation and apologies. Nearly all New Zealanders support this.
However, that Tribunal has become much more active in recent years, claiming ‘treaty breaches’ in areas that aren’t part of the 1840 document. For example, health inequality. This led to the previous Labour government setting up a separate national Maori Health Authority - now quickly disestablished by the present Government. The ACT party (minor party in the Government) has introduced a Treaty Principles Bill to (they say) establish the boundaries of what constitutes a ‘treaty breach’, rather than the process becoming a ‘gravy train’ for claimants. They have a good explanation here - although obviously this is only one side of the debate.
Thank you for your summary and for the link, that answers a lot of my initial questions.
These claims especially seems like the key information I was trying to get at:
I guess my next question is, how true are any of these claims? And how big of a problem are these “quotas”? Are they causing any measurable harm, or is this more an objection on principle?
…this is a gross mischaracterization of the role of the Tribunal, what a “treaty breach is”, and what it has said about health inequality. What actually lead to the previous Labour government setting up a separate national Maori Health Authority wasn’t a treaty ruling: it was an evidence lead decision, following the Health and Disability System Review established in 2018. We’ve had this discussion before. You know all of this.
Well, it depends on who you ask. The Maori Party (in Opposition) would characterise the Bill as removing rights and causing great harm. There are those in the legal profession and in academia that opine that law and educational changes made to ‘favour Maori’ will have a worsening effect on the country.
I see the thread’s now got another reply from a New Zealander with different views to my own. So there’s one data point for it being a divisive issue!
I wish I could find the article, but a few years ago I read an article by a man who had grown up in New Zealand, his liberal American parents emigrated there after the second election of GWB. They returned home after a few years because NZ turned out not to be the liberal utopia his family had hoped for. That, and the people are (were) xenophobic and downright hostile to him and his family for being Americans.
I’m starting to think that pretty much every Western democracy, unless you have lots of money to spare, is going to look at disappointed American leftists and tell us to fuck off.
A few days ago, in a rare example of all of them being on the same page, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori all stand in opposition.
Not only that, National only agreed to this because it was part of the coalition agreement.
New Zealand First is also on record that they won’t be supporting the bill past first reading.
This is a fringe bill from a fringe party that has an oversized influence on the government because the Prime Minister is, with all due respect, a spineless piece of shit. He agreed to a six-month process that will cost the taxpayer millions of dollars that has no hope of passing because firstly, it’s a treaty, and you need both parties to a treaty to agree when renegotiating an agreement, and secondly, he doesn’t have the numbers.
What this is is a misinformation campaign, one that will cost the taxpayer millions.
“Those in the legal profession and academia” that support this are on the fringe.
From Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Labour Prime Minister, former law professor at the University of Iowa and the Victoria University of Wellington, co author of “A Constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand” wrote this in September:
This is largely the consensus view. That (along with much of the government’s policies) are ministerial over-reach.
For some context for non-New Zealand readers: imagine RFK Jr proposed a Constitutional amendment and somehow managed to wrangle a select committee for six months and millions of tax payers dollars that had zero support from any of the other parties and expecting it to pass into law.
Unfortunately, we don’t quite have the constitutional protections that they have in the United States (not that I’m expecting that to matter much considering the result of the election) so who knows where this will lead. And parties like ACT and the Republicans very much have a focus on the “destruction of the administrative state.” The “Steve Bannon” approach. I very much doubt they will achieve it in their first term. But if they get a second, as the US are about to find out, all bets are off.
The government have decimated the public service and are in the process of tearing up governmental norms. It has, in part, had a big affect on me personally. I’m pretty much screwed now. I’m 50 now. And this has been the worst year of my life. Fuck this government.
The idea that a single, minority party that doesn’t have the support of its coalition partners and is opposed by all of the opposition, attempting to rewrite our founding document without engaging with one of the parties to the agreement wouldn’t be divisive is just ACT party spin. It’s a preposterous, ludicrous idea.
…Hana-Rawhiti Kareariki Maipi-Clarke tears up the bill yesterday and leads a haka, joined in by the gallery, along with MP’s from Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.
A reminder that no matter how much spin Seymour puts into this, the treaty is between Māori and the Crown. And no single party, no referendum, can redefine it. You’ve fucked around Seymour, now you are going to find out. This is a battle that you cannot win.
Has there been any efforts to make a “proper” English version of the treaty before?
It seems like if the problem is that the original English version and original Maori versions weren’t in agreement and the Maori chiefs back in the day didn’t understand English very well, that’s a pretty simple problem to solve now that the Maori presumably have a great grasp of English. They could just make a version that’s “this is our treaty translated from Maori to English”
…that’s what the Treaty of Waitangi commission is there for, along with decades of court decisions and precedent. Its more than “just getting a translation.” The words “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” is still the subject of debate. And that’s been plain english all along.
@Banquet_Bear, can you direct me to a non-biased source that discusses the treaty bill? I’ve read the bill itself but that doesn’t necessarily give a sense of how people feel like it affects them. I am guilty of letting a lot of NZ politics wash over me without caring too much, but I’d like to get a better handle on this issue.
These are the principles in question, [formatting mine]:
Principle 1
The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws in the best interests of everyone; and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Principle 2
The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.
However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Principle 3
Everyone is equal before the law.
Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—
– the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and
– the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
Personally I am very dubious. Looks ok if you don’t think about it much, but principle 2 is somewhat dodgy to me. The treaty of Waitangi is essentially Maori leadership becoming British subjects in a British country in exchange for retaining a lesser sovereignty over their own lands. Principle 2 puts their rights subordinate to sovereignty of the crown. So now they have their rights as long as it’s convenient to everyone.
It comes down to what rights you think indigenous people should have in their own land. Since most Dopers also live in former colonies, you can draw a direct parallel to how you think indigenous people from your own land should be treated. Personally I look at the example of the USA breaking every treaty they ever made with the native tribes and would rather we didn’t.
My other argument is ad Hominem. I don’t trust the guy who claimed last month that Sushi is too Woke for school lunches to be acting in good faith here. I can’t divine his intentions, but at the very least I see him pushing Maori language out of official documents and pushing it back into it’s own little optional boxes in the curriculum. I could also see Maori input into government activities being pushed back to easily ignorable public submissions. I dunno, I could see lots of other stuff but it’s 6pm on a friday so I give up.
The basic problem of the treaty is that when translated, the two versions used words with different meanings/interpretations.
Setting aside past misdeeds of “the crown” for the time being,
For the English version, “the state” (or politicians, as elected by citizens) rules the country, with “authority” over all citizens.
In the Maori version, indigenous people were promised “self determination” or, that they would have the right to rule themselves. (which, in my view, amounts to one country, two sets of rules)
In the modern nation state, the idea of different rules for different “races” doesn’t fly. But to treat all citizens exactly the same is against the actual Maori text of the treaty. What we are trying to do is reconcile these two things.
Because of historical injustices there are marked differences in social outcomes between the different racial identities, and much of made of trying to bring these back in line with preferential policies targeted specifically to help Maori.
Much of this is supported, but much is also decried as “unfair”.
In a case that applies to my personal life, as an example, someone that identifies as Maori can study medicine with a score of 70% in pre-med, my own daughter (who is also a minority, but the “wrong” sort of minority) scored just a smidge below 90% and missed out o9n the limited entry course. She applied for internships in her field of study, and was explicitly told that unless she is Maori, her application will not be considered.
What the ACT party is trying to do is “one nation, one people” - which ignores the very real systemic disparities in outcomes that are faced by Maori, but at the same time tries to address what are seen as very real differences in assistance, standards, government support and more based solely and exclusively on race (rather than, for example, socio-economic factors, upbringing, schooling available, or other factors)
