top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

THE CHALLENGES OF WAITANGI DAY

With Waitangi Day coming up, it looks as if we are to receive another dose of nonsense about the meaning of the Treaty. The website Stuff carries an article by Julian Wilcox who, it seems, is to co-host Radio New Zealand’s Waitangi Day coverage. It is full of the usual muddle-headed material about how the Crown has failed Maori with its education and health policies. Wilcox relies on a 2019 Waitangi Tribunal finding that argues for a new set of Treaty principles for New Zealand.



I’ll leave aside the fact that the job of the Tribunal, as set out in law, is to deal with existing Treaty principles, not to dream up new ones. From my decade served on the Tribunal I recall many people keen to invent new responsibilities for the Crown. No one ever seemed to feel that Maori had any need to improve their level of response to the opportunities that were already on offer. For the Tribunal, and for Wilcox who parrots them, every improvement that is needed in Maori outcomes must come from the Crown and be funded by taxpayers. A cynic might think that it all sounds like a Maori expectation that all of them should have an armchair ride to equality with those who take education seriously, are prepared to work hard, improve themselves, and contribute towards the wider social advancement of our country.



A century ago, that inspirational Maori leader, Apirana Ngata, recommended to Maori that they improve their lot by adopting Pakeha practices like better education and hard work. As a result, Maori employment figures lifted, and birth control gradually began to be practised; Maori had fewer children, who were better educated and cared for as a consequence. Maori standards of living rose appreciably. The Hunn Maori Affairs report of 1960 noted that school attendance by Maori at that time was almost equal to non-Maori.



Surprisingly enough, sixty years later the Tribunal and Wilcox are telling us that the sorry state of Maori statistics today is the responsibility of the Crown. Governments, they say, should commit to “achieving equitable outcomes for Maori”. This is a physical impossibility. People are not born with equal abilities. Science, which too many Maori deride, tells us that DNA plays a major part in people’s developing abilities. Nurture, too, has a key role. Limiting family size to children who are wanted and can realistically be looked after, is also vital. And proper parenting which means ensuring that one’s children are immunised, adequately fed and clothed is another part of any quest for equitable outcomes in life. These days on any normal school day more than 40% of Maori children are truants from school. Can the Tribunal and/or Wilcox explain to the rest of us how the necessary education to achieve equitable outcomes for Maori can be reached by the Crown alone? Is there no parental responsibility in their world?



Regular attendance across all ethnicities in Term 2 from 2015 to 2020


Some Maori radicals imply that more control of the school curriculum and compulsory te Reo would bring their disenchanted youth to the classrooms of the nation. But decades after Education department bureaucrats sought to involve Maori in course design, school attendance figures are only getting worse. Easy welfare payments after 1974 with the removal of any requirement by the absent father to contribute to the welfare of his offspring have only made things worse.



What seems obvious to me is that the radicals are now a couple of generations too late with their solutions to Maori underachievement. We live in a world where there are no full Maori left. Very few half castes either. No matter how many women moko their chins and mix Maori words into their everyday language, no amount of commitment to expenditure on tikanga and kaupapa Maori services will guarantee equitable outcomes for Maori. What is needed is a major campaign, preferably led by modern Maori Apirana Ngatas, aimed at the drop-out 40% of Maori society. It must drill into young adults that a carefree approach to sex, neglect of parental responsibility and skiving off from school are cast-iron guarantees of failure. There aren’t, and never have been, short-cuts past these fundamentals to success. The Tribunal and people like Wilcox mislead Maori if they keep on preaching their failed nostrums to the effect that it is only a lack of willpower and money from the Crown that are holding Maori back.



Next week, as we recognize the signing of the Treaty, we should commit ourselves to an obtainable world of many cultures where Maori help Maori to make the most of the opportunities on offer to them. Pakeha must be ready to assist. Not by throwing bundles of cash in an unaccountable way to any organization claiming to provide Maori services, but by using our skills to augment the necessary efforts by Maori leaders who are prepared to work hard for their next generation. Heading further off down the road to glorifying separate racial existence, new radical school agendas and more Mataraunga Maori are nothing but guarantees of further woeful statistics. Keeping on repeating the failed policies of recent decades and expecting better outcomes is the height of foolishness.


5,448 views72 comments

72 comentarios


Maybe the solution is to give the wanting maoris 20 % of New Zealand back to them with a wall that can not be crossed without some form of passport, those maori who elect to move there get nothing from us New Zealanders they can make it on their own, I am sure the socialist UN would feed and keep them in comfort until they got sick and tied of the situation, those other so called maoris who elected to stay in the New Zealand sector would be expected to swear allegiance to our country, all tattoos relating to maoridom would be removed, we are a clean skin society or should I say we once were, as a maori mat…

Me gusta
Contestando a

You are dead right, but not when he holds some form of power that can indirectly be used to alter the status quo, he should keep his views to himself until he goes back into civvy street, then he can express his personal views.

Me gusta

winder44
winder44
06 feb 2022

I think it is about time, that before MP's are sworn into Parliament, they need to brush up on NZ. History, and most of all, sit an IQ. test and at least pass it.


Observed in The NZ Herald: (In pidgin)

Te Pāti Māori has called for a "divorce" from the British monarchy and to move Aotearoa to a nation based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer made the call today as the country's political leaders shared their views on the Treaty of Waitangi in a virtual broadcast for Waitangi Day.

"If you look at our founding covenant as a marriage between tangata whenua and the Crown, then Te Tiriti is the child of that marriage," Ngarewa-Packer…


Me gusta
vic alborn
vic alborn
19 feb 2022
Contestando a

"....Te Pāti Māori has called for a "divorce" from the British monarchy and to move Aotearoa to a nation based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.....". WOW. Such logic. Move away from the entity that signed a treaty upon which you want to base the nation...???!!!


Me gusta

Maicc399 is mistaken. Prime Minister Norman Kirk introduced New Zealand Day in 1974, making it a multi-cultural day of celebration. The Queen was at Waitangi and enjoyed the multi-cultural spectacle on the lawn before her. Kirk called 6 February New Zealand's Day. It was Muldoon in 1976 who for some misguided political reason renamed it Waitangi Day. From then on the day lost its multi-cultural purpose and gradually became Grizzlers' Day. We don't really have a national day any more.

Me gusta
John Hurley
John Hurley
04 feb 2022
Contestando a

This is part of our nations inheritance & should never forget it: we were born in peace & justice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ9Pamt2qyQ&t=180s

Me gusta

I agree with the main arguments in this piece. However, the claim that "Easy welfare payments after 1974 with the removal of any requirement by the absent father to contribute to the welfare of his offspring..." is a false statement. So-called 'child support' is overwhelmingly paid by fathers. As a percentage of a father's income this often involves amounts far in excess of what's needed or fair for children's costs so functions mainly to fund the mother's lifestyle. The amounts involved frequently result in financial ruin for the father who can't afford to maintain accommodation with rooms for his children to stay, resulting in great social harm from insufficient paternal role in children's upbringing. The so-called 'child support' liability prevents…

Me gusta
ron
ron
04 feb 2022
Contestando a

I hear you!

Me gusta

winder44
winder44
01 feb 2022

I am concerned with this word "partnership". Where did it come from? Certainly not one of the three treaty articles, or from Queen Victoria's Charter Proclamation.

Definition of the word Treaty:

A contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state.

No partnership, No special favours, The words of Article three say it all


Me gusta
JW
JW
12 mar 2022
Contestando a

I think its how people refer to it. A marriage ceremony doesn't use the word "partnership" either

Me gusta
bottom of page