Don Brash's speech notes on Maori wards

DON BRASHS’ NOTES FOR ADDRESSING TAURANGA MEETING ON 29 JANUARY 2021 REGARDING MAORI WARDS

I’m here today because I believe passionately that all New Zealanders have the same constitutional rights – whether they are descended from people who came to New Zealand many centuries ago or whether they became naturalized New Zealanders yesterday, whether they have Maori ancestry, Pacific Island ancestry, Chinese ancestry, Indian ancestry, or European ancestry.

Equal constitutional rights is the only basis for a harmonious society.

New Zealand is unusual in that while of course we do have a constitution, it is not a single written document, as the US constitution is. The Treaty of Waitangi is not a constitution, and has never been adopted as such. But it is completely consistent with the principle that all New Zealanders have equal rights at law. Article III of the Treaty made it quite explicit that all New Zealanders would have the rights and privileges of British subjects.

I’m not aware of any other country where European colonists settled in what they called the New World and extended to the indigenous inhabitants the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the colonists.

Did our European ancestors always deal honorably with our Maori ancestors? No, sadly, not always, but as Apirana Ngata said nearly a century ago it is probably true that nowhere else in the world were the original inhabitants treated as well as they were in New Zealand.

But I’m not here to argue about the history – there will be many different views about that.

*****

Instead I want to talk about just two things – first, why racially-based representation is a seriously bad idea; and second, why talk about “partnership” between Maori and the Crown is total nonsense.

First, racially-based representation, or Maori wards.

I congratulate the people of Tauranga because I understand you have already garnered enough signatures on a petition so that the Council is obliged to hold a referendum on whether there should be Maori wards. That’s a crucially important first step. But it is only a first step. When a referendum is held, as it now must be, it is important that voters make it abundantly clear that they do not want race-based politics.

But, those who favour Maori wards may argue: how will the Maori voice be heard without Maori wards?

Well, first it must be noted that virtually every law passed by Parliament – and certainly all those relating to local government – require consultation with Maori before any significant decision is made – a privilege extended to no other ethnic group.

Second, more and more Maori New Zealanders are being elected to local government without the crutch of separate Maori wards. In 2004, only 4% of local body councilors were Maori. By 2016, more than 10% were.

And we know by how many Maori New Zealanders are elected to Parliament that Maori are absolutely as capable of being elected to local government as any other New Zealanders. I haven’t counted how many Maori New Zealanders there are in the current Parliament, but in the last Parliament one in four MPs were Maori. Even if the Maori electorates didn’t exist – and clearly the reason for their existence has long since gone – the number of Maori MPs would more than reflect the proportion of Maori in the New Zealand population.

A year ago, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, the Leader and Deputy Leader of New Zealand First, the Co-Leader of the Greens, and the Leader of the ACT Party were all Maori – and only one of those depended on a Maori electorate to get elected.

It is genuinely astonishing that the Tauranga City Council felt the need to create separate Maori wards when they have before their very eyes a perfect example of why Maori wards aren’t needed: since 1984 – in other words for the last 36 years – Tauranga has had a Maori Member of Parliament in all but three years. And both men – Winston Peters and Simon Bridges – got to Parliament on their merit, not by winning a Maori electorate.

As an aside, this is perhaps the time to mention that the people who organised this event had originally hoped to have Mr Peters speak at this meeting. Unfortunately he had another commitment, so I’m the rather poor substitute.

But I want to recount a conversation I had with Mr Peters about five years ago. We were talking about the growing tendency for radicals to try to drive a wedge between those who chance to have a Maori ancestor and those who don’t. I remarked that I thought that this issue was the biggest issue facing the Government of the day (the Key Government). No, he said, not the biggest issue facing the Government – the biggest issue facing the country. And I know he meant it.

Another point to note about the Maori Members of Parliament – they are spread across literally every party in Parliament. In other words, there is no single Maori view on important policies. Maori have as many different views as do other New Zealanders, and that is surely not surprising.

So having people chosen to be councilors on the basis of who some of their ancestors were makes no sense at all, all the more so given that all councilors, no matter by whom elected, must swear an oath to serve all the citizens in their city or district.

*****

The second big issue I want to touch on rather more briefly. And that is the crazy notion that the Treaty of Waitangi created some kind of partnership between those with a Maori ancestor and the Crown.

This is a relatively modern myth, probably dating back to the late 1980s when a Court of Appeal judge used the word loosely in commenting on a decision of the Court.

But there is not even a hint of “partnership” in the Treaty itself, whether we look at the Maori language version of the Treaty (which is the official version of course), the English draft from which the Maori version was translated, or the so-called official English version – the word “partnership” does not appear, and nor does any synonym for partnership.

And that is hardly surprising. Queen Victoria didn’t enter into partnership with anybody throughout her entire reign. As Winston Peters said in a speech he gave a couple of years ago in Paihia, the idea that Queen Victoria would have entered into partnership with 500 chiefs whom she had never met is absurd.

No, despite the valiant efforts of the Waitangi Tribunal to claim that the chiefs who signed the Treaty in 1840 didn’t really cede sovereignty at all, it is abundantly clear from the wording of the Treaty and from the speeches given at Waitangi by the chiefs who were there – and 20 years later speeches given by a large number of chiefs at Kohimarama – that the chiefs who signed the Treaty understood that they were being asked to submit to a higher authority. Some objected strongly but nevertheless did sign, no doubt because of what they hoped would be the benefits of having a higher authority put an end to the vicious inter-tribal warfare which had caused such massive casualties over the preceding two or three decades.

And of course ever since that time the overwhelming majority of Maori New Zealanders have behaved as if the Crown is sovereign, that there is no “partnership” between the Crown and Maori New Zealanders. They have served in the Police and Armed Services, they have taught in taxpayer-funded schools, they have been treated in government-owned hospitals, they have carried New Zealand passports when they travel overseas, they have accepted taxpayer-funded income support.

There can in fact be no other peaceful future: a future where all New Zealanders have the same rights and the same responsibilities – whether they be male or female, whether they be descended from Maori ancestors, or European ancestors, or Indian ancestors, or Chinese ancestors, or Pacific Island ancestors, or indeed a mixture of various ancestors. There can be no other peaceful future.

Don Brash

Below is a letter that Nanaia Mahuta sent to District & Regional Council/s that were being petitioned by citizens for a public referendum/poll.