Section two Chapter two Hijacking NZ Human Rights.

Hijacking of the NZ bill of rights
As I stated above I consider that the bill of rights was hijacked is virtually indisputable
and can be seen from the Parliamentary Conscience Votes Database, which describes
the voting patterns of MPs.
The latter shows that the bill of rights was passed by only 36 per cent of parliament and
that the bill of rights was ‘by and for’ a left-minority, all of them Labor MPs (Voting
Pattern. (1990) also see the appendix 2).
Of the remaining MPs involved in the conscience vote on the bill of rights 31 per cent
107
were against the bill of rights and 33 per cent were absent from the house. The 35
MPs who voted for the bill of rights were all from the Labor Party while the 30 MPs
who voted against it were all from the National Party except one from the New Zealand
First Party.
Roger Douglas, Minister of Finance in the Labor Government, who promoted
Rogernomics, which were very largely IMF global free market policies, voted for the
bill of rights seemingly aware that its human rights omissions (see the UN’s hidden
collectivist agenda described above and in chapter one in the section on the IMF)
would permit Rogernomics.
The 32 MPs who were absent from the parliament comprised 10 from National, 20
from Labor, one from United Future and one from the Progressive Coalition (It seems
to be the practice of the database to give an MP’s latest party status. Consequently, the
three MPs described in the database as being from the Act Party, which was not formed
until 1996, were, at the time of the conscience vote on the bill of rights in the Labor
Party (2) and National Party (1)).
The Labor Party’s constitutional rule 242 which requires MPs to abide by caucus
decisions may well be the reason why many Labor MPs were absent at the time of the
vote as it would likely be the only way to act in accordance with their conscience. It
certainly seems that if it was not for rule 242 the bill of rights might not have been
passed.
Little seems to have been written on rule 242 but it is occasionally mentioned in the
parliamentary debates:
Marie Hasler (NZ National, Waitakere) stated: “I accept that a Labor MP is probably a
mere delegate, a mere cypher, a mere mouthpiece, a restricted agent, and, most of all, a
servile pawn to the Labor leadership. However, Labor is not content with practicing its
scandalous rule 242 within just its own ranks; no, Labor wants to inflict this piece of
compulsory, groupthink, follow-the-leader mentality on to the whole House. It wants to
impose its regime of member obsequiousness on every other member. I find it utterly
amazing that the notion of individual conscience has become outdated. When did this
happen, exactly?” (Electoral Bill. (1997)).
108
In addition, Murray McCully (National, East Coast Bays) stated: “Í remind them that
the Opposition has nothing to equate with rule 242, which states that if one votes
against the Government, or withholds a vote one is out…’ (NZBORB. (1990)).
The above statistics on the voting patterns of MPs, although would have been recorded
in Hansard (report on New Zealand Parliamentary Debates), were, in my view, very
largely hidden from the public. I came across the above database by accident on the
internet in May 2012, 22 years after the bill of rights was passed.
I did not begin promoting human rights until a year after the bill of rights was passed in
1990 but in 21 years of promoting human rights, also reading some of the New Zealand
academic literature, I had never seen these figures before. I sent them to nearly every
MP and received about 13 responses but no one disputed them.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer, with Helen Clark as Deputy Prime Minister, led the fourth Labor
Government from August 1989 until September 1990 during which he engaged in
considerable reforms of the country’s legal and constitutional framework, including the
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (passed on 28 August 1990 just before he retired as
PM).
Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former Professor of Law, is described as the architect of the bill
of rights and was Deputy Prime Minister from 1984 to 1989, before becoming Prime
Minister. Sir Geoffrey Palmer received his knighthood in 1991, one year after the
passing of the bill of rights in 1990, while Roger Douglas received his knighthood in
1990.
Helen Clark, a former lecturer in political studies, was Deputy Prime Minister during
the period Sir Geoffrey Palmer was Prime Minister. She later became Prime Minister
serving three consecutive terms (1999 to 2008). She was chosen to Head the United
Nations Development Program in April 2009 and is now serving her second term. She
is now regarded as a leading candidate to become the first woman to become next UN
Secretary General (Campbell G. (2014)).
109
Divide and Rule
While economic globalization, under IMF globalization policies, led to the rise of the
Corporations, its parallel, political globalization, where nearly all States followed the
UN human rights agenda including its hidden collectivist agenda, led to the rise of the
liberal collectivists.
Although for nearly all New Zealanders the rise of the liberal collectivists seemed very
much ‘under the radar’, in the shadows of the Corporations.
While almost simultaneously with the liberal collectivists’ rise to political power in
1984, I believe I witnessed while working for a government department the creation of
an ‘old boys and girls network’, which seemed to reflect the interests of the liberal
collectivists, within the bureaucracy.
I consider political globalization meant that the leaderships of the global establishment,
almost without exception, were ideologically captured by the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist
agenda.
In my view, it is likely that it was the rapid pace of change (see blitzkrieg policies in
New Zealand below) as well as a ‘divide and rule’ (see below) which contributed to the
minds of left activists and academics seeming to ossify in the Cold War when the
discontented left-wing promoted anti-capitalism and anti-Corporations.
In my view, these left activists are describing a time when States still had much
sovereignty but with the onset of political globalization nearly all States gave up
significant sovereignty and abided by the UN’s human rights agenda, with its hidden
collectivist ideology, which also permitted States to execute the IMF’s economic
globalization policies.
The latter is evidenced by nearly all State constitutions permitting the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda which also enabled States to pursue the IMF’s globalization policies
(see chapter one).
While the left-activists, given their Cold War perspective, could understand economic
globalization when seeing the rise in global power of the Corporations they, almost
110
without exception, failed to see or understand the rise of the liberal collectivists under
political globalization.
Activists often express concern about the effects of the Corporations on climate change,
the decimation of the animal population, environmental damage and exploitation.
I consider while the Corporations may well be the direct or immediate cause of many
of these problems the real, although distant cause, are what can be loosely called the
‘rules of the game’ e.g. international human rights law, as determined at the United
Nations.
Consequently, I consider that what such a very large number on the left fail to see is
that the Corporations and capitalism simply obey the ‘rules of the game’ as does the
rest of the establishment and consequently are often merely a symptom rather than a
cause of such problems.
In my view, it is hard to see how capitalism can be blamed when the ‘rules of the game’
are determined at the UN where the global free market and global exploitation
undermined creative growth and the domestic free market.
Consequently, it is hard to take seriously left-wing anti-Corporation protests when they
also promote the UN’s human rights agenda, allowing the ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda,
which permits the activities of the Corporations.
The ethical approach to human rights would, however, limit the free market because all
must be ensured, at least, all the core minimum human rights in the Universal
Declaration and consequently there can be no exploitation.
However, the ethical approach would also protect capitalism in the long-term by
enabling individual self-determination which would result in a more competitive
domestic free market, a very important source of creativity, new ideas and the
development of human knowledge.
I consider that a more competitive domestic free market would likely mean if big
business fails there would be alternatives so it would be much less likely that any
business becomes ‘too big to fail’ and so requiring State assistance.
111
In addition to the failure to see the effects of political globalization the creation, in my
view, of a ‘divide and rule’ hid the reality from the discontented.
I consider, a far-right political party, the Act Party, founded in 1994 by former Minister
of Finance in the Labor Government, Roger Douglas, and joined by two other former
Ministers of the Labour Government in the 1996 elections was in order to create a
‘divide and rule’ to hide the hijacking and political globalization, (ACT. (2008)).
The former Labor Ministers were Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble and Ken Shirley.
They had all voted for the bill of rights almost certainly seeing that the rights omitted
permitted States to implement IMF globalization policies, which they strongly
advocated as Rogernomics.
In my view, social discontent was channeled by the liberal collectivists, who dominated
the establishment and the mainstream media, as well as their many supporters, towards
Roger Douglas, the Act Party, the Corporations and the one percent of the wealthy.
The modus operandi of the liberal collectivists was often to focus on lifting up the
lower functioning, often victims of social class discrimination, while ignoring and
isolating the higher functioning who are perceived as a threat to this social class which
is also very concerned to hide their hegemony.
I witnessed the modus operandi of the liberal collectivists most clearly in the
Occupation protests where those in control, from my observation closely linked with
the Green Party, seemed more concerned with deflecting discontent away from the
hijacking and political globalization than utilizing the more intelligent to achieve a
successful outcome.
In the group discussions of the Occupation the young, bright protestors were often just
ignored leaving them bewildered instead the controllers wanted to hear from those who
were less bright and articulate.
In my view, the Occupation protestors would have made a bigger impact if they had
stood for human rights e.g. perhaps including equal rights and economic, social and
cultural rights, which had been excluded in the bill of rights. I took the opportunity to
publicly address the protestors of this on various occasions and although some of the
112
younger, brighter protestors were interested, those in control simply ignored it (Ravlich
A. (2011)).
Consequently, from my observation, apart the channeling of discontent towards the
Corporations away from the left-establishment I consider no significant change was
sought.
Some of those individuals most prominent and best known to New Zealanders who I
consider were involved in channeling public discontent toward the Act Party and the
Corporations were Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law, described by the university directory
as ‘one of New Zealand’s best known critical commentators on issues of globalization
and neoliberalism’ (Auckland University. (2015)) and John Minto described as a
veteran socialist activist.
In my view, this domestic ‘divide and rule’ reflects what I consider to be a ‘divide and
rule’ at the global level between the UN General Assembly, which created the UN’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, and the IMF, which determines globalization policies,
described in chapter one.
What I consider was very socially and psychologically destructive in New Zealand,
perhaps more so than in other neoliberal countries, was the rapid pace in which
neoliberalism was implemented with Roger Douglas, the 1984 Labor Government’s
Minister of Finance, describing the implementation of the neoliberal policies in 1984 as
a ‘policy blitzkreig’ (Hayward B. (2012)).
I was convinced, as one of those near the bottom, that it was meant that no one would
be able to retain their sanity and be articulate enough to be able to describe what
happened to themselves and others. While the implementation of policy may have
seemed like the use of a ‘hammer’ at the top it translated into a ‘sledge hammer’ when
impacting on those at the bottom.
Philippa Mein Smith states that Rogernomics has been likened to a ‘blitzkreig’ because
the reforms proceeded so fast and extensively, with all the zeal of a crusade (Smith P.
(2012)).
History New Zealand states that ‘nowhere else were they [neoliberal policies]
113
implemented with the speed and zeal shown by Douglas and his supporters’ and adds
that ‘New Zealand was quickly reinvented as one of the most free-market economies in
the industrialized world’ and ‘the agenda came thick and fast: deregulation,
privatization, the sale of state assets, and the removal of subsidies, tariffs, tax breaks
and price controls (NZ History. (1986)).
An example of the ‘policy blitzkreig’ described by Roger Douglas was, in my view, the
‘well-known’ severe benefit cuts of April 1991 which were implemented about eight
months after the bill of rights was passed and which I consider would have been the
major cause of the present virtually ‘permanent’ underclass. In my view, this heralded a
society based much more on exploitation rather than creativity i.e. furthering the
cultural cleansing of individual self-determination.
If economic, social and cultural rights had been included in the bill of rights I think the
severe benefit cuts could have been successfully challenged in the court.
For example, Paul Hunt suggests the use of negative judicial review. He states: “In
April 1991, the New Zealand government introduced cuts in welfare. According to the
Human Rights Commission, the reduced rates brought some beneficiaries below the
Treasury’s own “income adequacy” level. If New Zealand law provided that
individuals have a right to an adequate standard of living, why could a court not
declare that the cuts were unlawful because they violate this right?” (Hunt P. (1996)).
In what began my human rights activities I protested the impending benefit cuts in
April 1991 by throwing a brick through the window of the Christchurch employment
service because I considered the benefit cuts violated the right to a reasonable standard
of living included in the economic, social and cultural rights which New Zealand had
ratified under international law.
While I got nation-wide television coverage the reasons for my protest, which also led
to court appearances, were not told the public.
Because of my protest the New Zealand Labor Party set up a Parliamentary Select
Committee under Christchurch Central MP, Lianne Dalziel, to look into my activities
and the concerns of residents regarding the benefit cuts.
114
In addition, the Human Rights Commission, who I was in contact with, in their
submission to the Finance Bill stated that ‘the Bill may breach the United Nations
covenants to which New Zealand is a signatory. In the view of the Human Rights
Commission, New Zealand may be in breach of its United Nations obligations’
(NZHRC. (1991)).
Another area which in my view would have made New Zealand’s experience of
neoliberalism far harder than in other countries was the extraordinary prominence
given to Maori tribalism.
I consider the rise of the Maori culture reflected the promotion of collectivist cultures
by the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda and was driven by the dominant collective, the
liberal collectivists, who appeared to be the major supporters of Maori tribalism.
If the measure of modernity is the Universal Declaration in my view the promotion of
Maori tribalism was designed to take the country backwards attempting to eliminate
the individual freedoms of Western culture, part of New Zealander’s British heritage, to
ensure no challenges to the liberal collectivists.
New Zealand changed majorly from a country which promoted self-help and its ethnic,
largely business, communities to a country which promoted dependency and a
repressive Maori culture.
Upward mobility seemed based largely on descent and affirmative action rather than
merit which meant it was very difficult to better oneself because of one’s hard work
which is virtually the only hope those lower on the lower social scale have of
advancement.
I consider the dominance given a dependency and, in my view, a repressive tribal
culture, would have contributed to many of the best and brightest leaving the country
including the more independent Maori as indicated by one in six Maori living in
Australia (Hamer P. (2009)).
While some considered many left the country was because they were racists I consider
for many the real reason was the affirmative action policies, particularly for Maori and
women, which meant that the ‘best and brightest’ were subjected to the constant
115
humiliation of having those of lesser ability being preferred.
Geoffrey Palmer’s biographer considered that it was Geoffrey Palmer’s experience
when studying in America of the slums of South Chicago with its racial divisions
which persuaded him that ‘New Zealand could not afford to have a permanent
underclass defined by race’ (Richards, 2012).
Geoffrey Palmer as Deputy Prime Minister when the New Zealand Labor Party won
the 1984 election declared that the Labor Government would ‘investigate Maori
grievances that had arisen since 1840, when Maori and the Crown had signed the
Treaty of Waitangi to regulate colonization’ (Richards R. (2012)).
The Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act provided a process for addressing
long-standing grievances, especially those involving the Crown’s historic seizures of
Maori Land resulting in Maori receiving compensation for on-going claims (Richards.
2012)).
I consider the special privileges accorded Maori tribalism was often justified by New
Zealand being designated as a bicultural society because the Treaty of Waitangi was
increasingly considered the founding document of New Zealand which establishes a
partnership between the Maori tribal leaders and the Crown (Fatimah. (2015)).
Te Ara, The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, describes the Treaty of Waitangi as a
written agreement made in 1840 between the British Crown (the monarch) and more
than 500 Māori chiefs. After that, New Zealand became a colony of Britain and Māori
became British subjects (Te Ara. (2012)).
The latter partnership led to New Zealand being described as a bicultural society giving
Maori a special status but in reality New Zealand is a multicultural society as seen in
the demographic profile.
New Zealand Demographics Profile 2014: the population is 4,401,916 (July 2014 est)
of which 71.2 percent are European, 14.1 percent are Maori, 11.3 percent are Asian and
7.6 percent are Pacific people, (index mundi. (2014)).
In addition to addressing Maori grievances the major aim of the New Zealand
government appears to have been to eliminate disparities between Maori and
116
non-Maori. In 2002 Tim Caughley, New Zealand’s representative at the UN stated that
the fourth periodic report to the UN Human Rights Committee ‘highlighted a number of
significant developments……in particular, in the process of settling claims under the
Treaty of Waitangi and the elimination of disparities between Maori and non-Maori
(UNHRC. (2002)).
Consideration of the Treaty was built into the law-making process in New Zealand.
“All Ministers seeking approval to introduce bills into Parliament must indicate
whether they were consistent with the principles of the Treaty. The Treaty was also
incorporated into a range of domestic legislation. Regardless of whether a particular
Act referred to the Treaty, the Courts had interpreted relevant legislation in a manner
consistent with the Treaty whenever possible” (UN Human Rights Committee. (2010)).
Affirmative action for Maori was one way special privileges were bestowed on Maori
tribalism. Section 19(2) of the bill of rights allowed for such affirmative action. It
states: “Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons
or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue
of Part II of the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination” (the latter
was also used to ensure affirmative action for women).
The reduction of disparities between Maori and Pakeha (the Maori name for Europeans)
higher on the social scale was evident politically and economically.
Such affirmative action certainly appears to have benefited Maori politically as seen in
parliament where the proportion is now 20.7% of Parliament are Maori. This compares
to Maori being 14.1% of the overall population and just 11.3% of the adult population.
Farrar states that ‘that is a very significant over-representation’ (Farrar D. (2014)).
In parliament Maori were permitted two political parties chosen on racial grounds: The
Maori Party (July 2004 to present) and the Mana Movement (April 2011 to 2014). By
contrast if other racial groups did likewise, in my view, they would be regarded as
racist.
While Maori (and women) benefited from affirmative action in the bureaucracy
(Ravlich A. (2008)).
117
In 2001 the asset base of the Māori economy was estimated to be worth $9.4 billion,
this figure rose to $16.5 billion by 2006, and is now estimated it was worth at least
$36.9 billion in 2010 (Maori economy. (2015)).
Disparities at the lower social levels were also reduced with many Europeans, as the
gap between rich and poor increased, being reduced to living similar lifestyles to Maori,
which from my observation treat a significant number as virtual outcasts (see below),
and thereby reducing disparities.
Few people would regard Pope Francis as racist (although because of the racial
sensitivity that exists in New Zealand there may be some) yet during his visit to Africa
he expressed what I consider is a modern view of tribalism when he told the youth at
the Safaricom Stadium in Kenya that ‘tribalism destroys’.
He stated: “Tribalism can only become with an ear, a heart and hand. If you do not
dialogue with each other, if you do not listen to each other, then you are going to have
divisions like dust; like a worm that grows in society,” he said.
The Pope noted that ‘only dialogue between the different groups would resolve the
issues of concern’. Pope Francis asked all those attending the meeting at the stadium to
stand up and hold hands saying this signified unity against tribalism.
He concluded: “To overcome tribalism is a daily endeavor, you have to listen to others,
it is the work of opening your heart to others and it is the work of your hands,” (Groin.
(2015)).
In my view, non-discrimination on the grounds of race was so strictly adhered to that
there was a considerable reluctance by New Zealanders to discuss the deficiencies of
Maori culture and how that might well have contributed to any increased racism.
In my view, racism is very largely used as a political weapon. Anyone who criticizes
Maori is liable to be ‘labelled’ racist whereas, in my view, people’s concerns have
much more to do with their tribal culture rather than their skin color.
And this is indicated by the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, driven by the liberal
collectivists, which, in my view, seeks to promote collectives the aim being, in my view,
to acclimatize New Zealanders to living under repression in a future totalitarian society
118
which the adoption of neoliberal absolutism would almost certainly involve.
In my view, the promotion of totalitarian and repressive cultures also suit the class
interests of the liberal collectivists by enabling their continued dominance by ensuring
obedience and removing dissent.
In my personal view, as ‘evil’ rises in the world e.g. in my view, the creation of
neoliberal absolutism on 10 December 2008, so often do the fortunes of the collectives,
including Maori tribalism.
The sensitivity of tribal Maori regarding their own failings could also evoke threats of
violence on their part which would deter many New Zealanders from having such
discussions with Maori.
From my observation in New Zealand the collectives, including tribal Maori, to a
considerable extent link forces to execute the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
There also seems little distinction made between racial and cultural differences. For
example, to dislike another culture does not amount to racism. The latter occurs when
an individual is treated unfairly because of their color while a dislike of a repressive,
dependency culture, which is how I see Maori tribalism, is, in my view, as legitimate as
a dislike, even hate, for communism or fascism.
Rather than cultural respect I consider a better term is cultural tolerance. In my view,
there is always something that one can find good about another culture which is
sufficient to ‘get by with people’ while individuals all have ethical human rights which
need to be respected.
Maori tribalism does have a spiritual tradition which means it is much less prone to the
profound arrogance of the secular, liberal collectivists which I described in my article,
‘Profound arrogance at the UN’ (cited in chapter one) where there is also a discussion,
including Maori tribalism, with an Islamic Associate Professor of Law from Pakistan.
Also, what is rarely ever discussed in mainstream New Zealand is that Maori
discriminate amongst their own people on the grounds of Whakapapa, or family
lineage, which is permitted by the exclusion of non-discrimination on the grounds of
birth, which includes descent, from New Zealand’s human rights law.
119
Such discrimination, together with the social class discrimination that exists in New
Zealand, may help explain why, from my observation, many Maori seem virtual
outcasts, as if for some it is their destiny to live their lives sleeping and begging on the
streets.
While not exclusively Maori begging on the streets, from my observation, they make
up by far the majority in Auckland, at least. By contrast I see few Pacific Islanders
begging on the streets.
In my view, as was the case with professional, middleclass women and the liberal
collectivists both groups favored by social class discrimination, professional,
middleclass Maori would have been favored according to Whakapapa.
Non-discrimination on the grounds of birth seems to apply particularly to Maori. Hiri
Mead states: “In te ao Mäori, Whakapapa underpins the whole social system.
Classification by whakapapa establishes eligibility in tribal matters. It legitimizes
participation in hapü affairs and opens doors to kinship privileges and to iwi assets
(Mead H. (2003)).
However, in my view, affirmative action is really meant for those who have suffered
the worst forms of discrimination who are often found lower on the social scale
consequently I consider favoring those higher on the social scale by the exclusion of
non-discrimination with respect to birth cannot be in ‘good faith’ which is required by
Section 19(2) of the bill of rights.
Tribal Maori, generally, seem to fail to ‘pull their weight’ if the development of human
knowledge is used as a measure and this seems also to be largely due to the cultural
cleansing of individual self-determination which seems intrinsic within Maori tribalism
i.e. in my view, independent thinkers would be regarded as a threat to the Maori elite.
Yet, I consider, in my personal view, the pursuit of knowledge can also be very much a
spiritual pursuit as it gets closer to God’s Universal Truth.
Failure in terms of the development of human knowledge is indicated by lack of
educational attainment. In 2013 in terms of having NZEA level 2 qualifications when
leaving school 87 per cent of Asians had this level of qualification, 80 per cent of
Europeans/Pakeha, 39.9 per cent of Pacific Islanders and 28.8 per cent of Maori
120
(Tapaloeao V. (2014)).
Individual self-determination requires both survival rights and self-help rights but the
latter seems very lacking at the lower social level with Maori becoming ever more
trapped in dependency which is indicated by their dependency on benefits being far
higher when compared to Pacific people, who originate from the Pacific Islands.
The benefits received by Pacific people far more closely correlate with their percentage
of the population than do Maori. At the end of December 2012 there were 109,000 on a
Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB). Maori, who comprise 14.1 percent of the
population, make up 42.8 per cent of those on the DPB. By contrast, 10.1 per cent of
Pacific people are on the DPB and make up 7.6% of the population.
Those on invalids Benefits numbered 84,000 of which 22.7 per cent were Maori (14.1
percent of the population) and 5.1 per cent were Pacific people (7.6 percent of the
population).
Those on sickness benefit numbered 61, 000 of which 28.1 per cent were Maori (14.1
percent of the population) and 6.6 per cent were Pacific people (7.6 percent of the
population).
Those on the unemployment benefit totaled 54, 000 of which 38.8 per cent were Maori
(14.1 percent of the population) and 8.9 per cent Pacific people (7.6 percent of the
population) (Benefit Fact Sheets. (2012)).
In addition, in terms of Maori self-help Te Puni Kokeri describes self-employment rates
for Maori are approximately half those of most other ethnic groups (Te Puni Kokiri.
(2007)).
And that there seems to have been little change over the past eight years is indicated by
a report released in March 2015 on Māori entrepreneurialism by the Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment which finds that about 10 percent of Māori are
self-employed or are employers compared with about 20 percent for the general
population. The report is based on data taken from the 2013 census (Radio NZ.
(2015)).
Having lived in the Auckland CBD for many years I can only remember one business
121
owner being Maori.
Māori ethnic population in the Auckland Region total 137,133 which is 24.3 percent of
New Zealand’s Maori population (QuickStats. (2013)).
I attribute the lack of involvement of Maori in small business as due very largely to
tribalism as, from my observation, many seem to seek to share in any profits made by
those exceedingly few who attempt to start up their own business.
However, inability to follow their dreams and set up in small business effectively cuts
out numerous opportunities for Maori so it is not surprising that at times of high
unemployment they often have recourse to drugs and crime which would very likely
increase racist views in the general population whereas, in my view, it is best seen as
indicating a cultural problem rather than a problem due to race.
While also from my observation some Maori criminality seems to have political
overtones e.g. a challenge to the Pakeha system seems sometimes to be a source of
mana in the tribe.
Social problems involving Maori are virtually always considered to be due to racism
while no mention is made of the deficiencies of tribalism.
For example, a recent UN report highlighted the over-representation of Maori in prison.
Maori make up 50% of the population in jail, despite accounting for just 15% of all
New Zealanders.
Rather than tribalism the cause is seen as being due to the State and institutional
racism.
Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox says researchers have been talking about
discrimination in the court system for a long time.
“Nobodies listened to that for many years, and I think it helps when the UN puts a bit
of light on it because then we get a bit of action. (Walker N. (2015)).
However, Geoffrey Palmer, perhaps anticipating high rates of imprisonment given the
underclass created by the bill of rights (see below), seemed to ensure that the bill of
rights provided more than adequate protections for criminal offenders with ‘search,
122
arrest and detention’ comprising 7 human rights out of a total of 20 human rights in the
bill of rights.
And there has also been public concern that the bill has been too lenient on criminal
offenders. The New Zealand delegate, Colin Keating, told the UN Human Rights
Committee: ” Most of the early jurisprudence since the adoption of the Bill of Rights
had related to criminal procedural issues, and had caused considerable public alarm, for
the Bill of Rights was perceived as having created more loopholes for defendants in
criminal cases” (UN Human Rights Committee. (1995)).
While I consider Maori have every right to believe in tribalism ethical human rights
requires that all individuals, including those in collectives or tribes, have a duty to the
community.
The latter includes not violating the ethical human rights of others which, for example,
criminality often can. New Zealanders, in my view, would be justified in requiring
some form of compensation from Maori for such violations of ethical human rights.
However, first, in my view, the omitted rights need to be included in the bill of rights
so Maori are given a choice (see below).
It is well-known, but little spoken about, that many Maori outside of their elite
benefited little, or not at all, from the compensation for Maori grievances and, from my
observation, the existence of Maori political parties did not seem to alter this situation.
In my view, much good will has been shown to Maori by New Zealanders but, I
consider, this can be taken too far. For example, tribal Maori seem to be seeking special
status in perpetuity by including the Treaty of Waitangi in a constitution.
The latter could allow them to avoid the arduous task of thinking for oneself and
self-help, often involving challenging elites, and sharing the burden of the development
of human knowledge.
In December 2010, the terms of reference of a major Constitutional review was decided.
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Maori Affairs Minister, Pita Sharples, said the
review would cover issues such as the size of Parliament, the length of the electoral
term, Maori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New
123
Zealand needs a written constitution.
A New Zealand academic of Maori, Irish and French descent (it is generally recognized
that the great majority of Maori are of mixed descent) Dr Brian McDonnell believes the
pendulum has swung too far in redressing Maori grievances.
Dr Brian McDonnell, a senior lecturer in film studies at Massey University explains it
well. He states: “It has been the move to enshrine the Treaty of Waitangi in a written or
more formalized constitution that I feel should be the ‘bridge too far’ for well-meaning,
reasonable, moderate people, both Maori and Pakeha, to say ‘enough’.
Dr McDonnell believes such a constitution will trap Maori in a “suffocating
self-definition as in need of special pleading and a special status”. He believes personal
advancement should be the result of merit and not the consequence of gender, ethnicity
or socio-economic status.
“Constitutionally, we cannot have two types of citizenship, two groups of citizens
depending on your ethnic group – one made up of people like myself who Whakapapa
back to iwi and hapu and those who don’t. “The order in which your ancestors arrived
as migrants, settlers to this country cannot give you a constitutional status that is
different from anyone else.
“To embed this in some permanent way is intolerable. People who are born here
belong to the land equally. “We are at a risky time in our nationhood and are like a boat
being rowed by people looking fixedly towards the past” (Vaughan R. (2013)).
Human rights seems to have been side-lined in the Key Government’s Constitutional
Review. The Constitutional Advisory Panel to oversee the review consists of 12
appointees whose biographical information show that none have had a human rights
background (Advisory Panel. (2011)).
The constitutional review comes at a time when many of New Zealand’s ‘best and
brightest’, who would best be able to hold the government to account on the subject,
have joined the mass exodus from the country.
An Independent Maori Constitutional Working Group, convened by Professor Margaret
Mutu (Ngati Kahu) and its Chairperson is Moana Jackson (Ngati Kahungunu/Ngati
124
Porou), was set up.
Jackson states: “The issue is not how the Treaty might fit into a constitution but how a
constitution might be based upon the Treaty,” (Independent Constitutional Working
Group. (2011)).
However, to my knowledge, Maori are not being informed of the benefits that would
accrue to them if omitted human rights were included in New Zealand’s bill of rights.
These omitted human rights would automatically be included in the Treaty of Waitangi.
Article the third of the Treaty of Waitangi states: “In consideration thereof Her Majesty
the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and
imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects” (Treaty of Waitangi.
(1840)).
As would be expected, if you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), the inclusion of the omitted human rights would of great benefit to both
Maori and Pakeha.
In my view, the poor should have a voice of their own in the mainstream media so they
can inform/influence the democratic majority. Maori could then hold their elite to
account as well as demand a share in the compensation.
A voice in the mainstream media would require no forms of discrimination such as
social class discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of birth should exist
which allow the mainstream media to exclude the voices of the poor.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the rights to individual self-determination and economic,
social and cultural rights could be of assistance to more entrepreneurial and creative
Maori wishing to follow their dreams. For instance, some of the compensation given
Maori could be used to help such independent Maori to help themselves as well as
perhaps employ other ‘outcasts’.
The inclusion of omitted rights would, in my view, help set many Maori (and Pakeha)
free – from the streets, crime, drugs, dependency, and enable them, with greater
independence, to follow their dreams e.g. aspire to small business. It would seem likely
that being able to follow their dreams would provide added motivation to Maori at
125
school to achieve educationally.
While I consider it would take a very brave Maori to challenge their elite by claiming
such rights, in my view, they should be included to provide a choice and necessary
support to any possibly ‘lone’ individual in their fight.
Also, in my view, it would also give the long suffering ordinary New Zealanders hope
that Maori tribalism will not be a burden in perpetuity.
However, in my opinion, New Zealanders have partly themselves to blame because I
consider they are too soft in their dealings with Maori who, while they may not like it,
would respect a tougher approach.
For instance, I consider Maori constitutional aspirations to include a collectivist Treaty
of Waitangi in a constitution amounts to cultural warfare and New Zealanders need to
protect their Western culture which emphasize individual rights.
Such an underlying cultural war, although much more covert than overt, seems part of
collectivism, including Maori tribalism.
In addition, New Zealanders still seem to have a strong cultural attachment to Britain
which is a leader of Western culture.
The latter cultural attachment is indicated in the recent flag debate where New
Zealanders preferred to retain the flag with the union jack reflecting its British heritage
by 56.6 per cent to 43.2 per cent (NZ Flag. (2015)).
New Zealanders are constantly being told that the Treaty is the foundational document
of New Zealand. But an important historical fact which I discovered but, as is very
likely the case with nearly all other New Zealanders, have never heard mentioned
before is that the English laws, including ‘imperial laws’ such as the UK Bill of Rights
1689 and the Magna Carta 1297 (as well as English common law rights), came into
force in New Zealand, on the 14th January, 1840, predating the signing of the Treaty of
Waitangi, on the 6th February 1840, by 23 days (English Laws. (1908)).
The above imperial laws are still in effect in New Zealand (see Imperial Laws
Application Act 1988).
126
Palmer stated in the Parliamentary debate on the bill of rights: “The rights contained in
the Bill [bill of rights] are those that, generally speaking, are already considered to be
part of our law, either in statute or in common law. They date back to the Magna
Charter, and to the [UK] Bill of Rights of 1689. They also reflect New Zealand’s
obligations under international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.” (Bill of Rights Bill. (1990)).
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is often described as ‘A Magna Carta for
all humanity, Human Rights for All’ (DPI. (1997)).
The Magna Carta is said to establish the rule of law. Fiona Crichton states: “Heralded
as the beginning of English constitutional law….it deals with the relationship of the
Crown and the Church, and the Crown and common people…. The Charter also
referred to certain matters of individual liberty such as freedom of movement while
identifying the concept of majority rule in decision making” (Crichton F. (2010)).
Crichton states that the Bill of Rights 1689 goes further than the Magna Carta: “The
bill went further than setting out the relationship of the Crown to parliament in that, in
part, it identified the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty…..The Bill established the
rights of citizens to petition the Crown, declared that the election of Members of
Parliament should be free and identified the notion of Parliamentary privilege, that
freedom of speech in Parliament should not be questioned in any place outside of
parliament, effectively protecting Members of Parliament from defamation
proceedings” (Crichton F. (2010)).
The Bill of Rights 1689 is described as a predecessor of the United States Constitution,
the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European
Convention on Human Rights (Bill of Rights 1689. (1995-2016)).
Consequently, from my research, historically, human rights are the foundation of New
Zealand not the Treaty of Waitangi.
Also, while many New Zealanders have, at time of war, been prepared to die to protect
their ‘way of life’, including human rights, it is very much doubted New Zealanders,
even Maori, would be prepared to die for the Treaty of Waitangi.
127
The ethical human rights approach promoted in this book (see chapter four), if reflected
in New Zealand human rights law, and parliamentary sovereignty could coexist.
The ethical approach would require a very firm ‘human rights bottom-line’ – the core
minimum obligations of the State with respect to both civil and political rights and
economic, social and cultural rights which could be included in a New Zealand Ethical
bill of rights and be entrenched and made supreme law.
The Ethical Bill of Rights would include all the human rights presently omitted from
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including those omissions which permit the
UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
But parliament could retain sovereignty when dealing with the higher levels of human
rights and this would reflect the views of the political parties chosen by the democratic
process.
Embarking on such a new direction for the country may attract many New Zealanders
back. Kea New Zealand, which conducts a five-yearly ‘census’ Every Kiwi Counts
2011, found in their on-line survey of over 15,000 New Zealanders living offshore that
27% of respondents are currently looking for jobs in New Zealand for themselves or
others (Kea NZ. (2011)).
Kea New Zealand Global CEO Dr. Sue Watson says of the results: “Our overseas
respondents are not only searching for employment in New Zealand, they are also
seven times as likely as those living here to have a post-graduate qualification. These
results are showing us there is a real opportunity to reconnect with this talent pool of
global Kiwis for the benefit of the New Zealand economy.”
Also, the survey shows nearly 46% of overseas-based Kiwis in the survey report that
they earn over NZ$100,000 per annum while one in five (21%) aged over 50 earn more
than NZ$200,000 per annum.
Dr. Watson adds: “We now know that over a quarter of overseas New Zealanders are
actively looking for jobs for themselves or others in New Zealand, so there is a large
connection and communication job to be done if we are to entice those Kiwis looking
to return home” (Kea NZ. (2011)).
128
Adopting ethical human rights, which includes ethical ‘bottom-up’ development would
effectively ‘turn New Zealand around’ from an emphasis on big business to an
emphasis on the small entrepreneur. While the inclusion of individual economic, social
and cultural rights would also take it forward.
Ethical human rights would enable individual self-determination, seeking of truth,
hopes and dreams, requires both sufficient ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help rights’.
Furthermore, if affirmative action is regarded as a way of compensating those who
have suffered the worst forms of discrimination (see below) this could also assist those
following their dreams who may also employ other ‘outcasts’.
Such a new course for the country could encourage many New Zealanders to return and
invest in small/medium business.
In June 2010 after making a stand on principle I appeared in the Auckland High Court
where I told the High Court Judge, Lyn Stevens, who is now on the Court of Appeal,
that many of those at the bottom of the social scale had been ‘crushed and isolated’ due
to social class discrimination.
I called it a New Zealand Tragedy and that I had been a first-hand witness having lived
in poverty and mixing with those at the bottom of the social scale for many years. I am
convinced that no one was meant to survive with their sanity intact and able to
articulate what had taken place but I had the advantage of human rights which enabled
me to fight throughout.
After viewing some of the terrible social statistics the Judge believed my account
asking me why I had not informed New Zealand earlier (Ravlich A. (2010)).
And just as with my protest in Christchurch in 1991 the reasons for my protest was
excluded by the media. While two reporters from two major newspapers were at my
court case their news reports only reached the internet and made no mention of the
New Zealand Tragedy which I described to the court (their articles can be found at the
end of the submission, see above (Ravlich A. (2010))
In my view, the above victims of what I saw as a vicious social class discrimination
which seemed to last about 20 years should be compensated and the government
129
should publicly admit its culpability.
In my view, many of the victims of discrimination may well have suffered
‘psychological trauma’ which may later have contributed to the high levels of child
abuse.
And the children need to know when they get older what their parents had been put
through by the State. This, in my view, would facilitate forgiveness by the children as
well as self-forgiveness by the parents.
Such compensation is supported by Article 8 of the Universal Declaration which states:
“Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for
acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law”.
Apart from individuals seeking accountability and/or compensation one possible form
of compensation often used is affirmative action for those most severely discriminated
against and/or those with entrepreneurial talents, who I consider were also often treated
as social outcasts. The latter could employ many other victims.
In my view, accountability and compensation is required and I consider it is very
largely those responsible for the hijacking of the bill of rights such as Geoffrey Palmer
and Helen Clark who should be held to account.
I had tried on innumerable occasions to inform the public of the ‘New Zealand
Tragedy’, writing articles on the internet, making incessant use of talkback radio, had
my own show on Planet Radio (although it only reached a small largely ethnic
population) for about 18 months, wrote a book, tried on a number of occasions to
inform Helen Clark, the then Prime Minister but received no reply although I did have
some regular contact with Rosslyn Noonan, the then Chief Human Rights
Commissioner.
I even stood as a political candidate for a ‘minor, minor’ unregistered political party,
the Human Rights Party (which is also described in the above submission) in two
elections while in the last election I had my book outlining the ethical approach to
human rights as the political party’s ethical base but this also failed to reach the
130
mainstream media and consequently the democratic majority.
In my experience, unless it is reported in the mainstream media where it can reach the
democratic majority you are virtually ‘a voice in the wilderness’ i.e. you virtually do
not count.
[The Human Rights Party is an unregistered minor, minor political party initiated by
human rights activist, Anthony Van Den Heuvel, who continues to stand as its political
candidate]
A major problem I faced as an activist was the human rights ignorance of the
population. Few seemed aware that if they were discriminated against their lifestyles
would also very likely suffer.
My previous book describes how the bill of rights was very little understood by New
Zealanders (Ravlich A. (2008)).
For example, Paul Rishworth states: “The White Paper debates had shown that the bill
of rights was largely irrelevant to the concerns of ordinary working people” (Rishworth
P. and Huscrost G. (1995)).
Also, I consider the lack of human rights education of the population is a major factor
for the lack of interest.
In my view, it is apparent that people have been deliberately kept ignorant of human
rights so they are unable to see its relevance in their lives or are able to hold the State
to account.
Human rights education is required under section 5(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993
but I was personally informed by the Human Rights Commission, who have a duty to
educate people, that it has never been funded.
In 2010 New Zealand underwent a review of its human rights record by the UN Human
Rights Committee. New Zealand’s report, ‘Questions Posed on Treatment of Maori,
Asylum Seekers, Human Trafficking’, to the UN Human Rights Committee was
headed: Delegation: “We Are Determined, as a Country, to Make Human Rights
Relevant in the Daily Lives of New Zealanders and of Citizens around the World”
131
This was reiterated twice in the body of the report and Simon Power, the former
Minister of Justice, stated:
“In concluding the two-day discussion, Mr. Power emphasized that the challenge for
his and any Government was to ensure human rights were pertinent in the daily lives of
citizens and, in doing so, bolster the application of internationally-agreed rights
instruments, including the Covenant. New Zealand must work hard so that its citizens
did not believe such treaties — and discussion of their application — were the remit of
high academic and international bodies” (UNHRC. (2010)).
However, to my knowledge, since the above statements were made no such human
rights education has taken place.
The ethical approach to human rights which is advocated requires that the poor have a
voice of their own in the mainstream media so they can influence the democratic
majority. The latter was the principle upon which I stood when making the above court
appearance.
In my view, without the human rights language the poor would be very seriously
disadvantaged in a human rights world because, in my experience, the establishment
were extremely intolerant and dismissive of contrary views e.g. socialist or religious
views, but did make some allowances with respect to human rights because they like to
think they also believe in human rights.
It seems astounding that major constitutional changes are being considered while both
Pakeha and Maori have so very little understanding of human rights.
But it is also of major concern that a constitutional review is being done at a time when
many of the country’s ‘best and brightest’, who could best hold the government to
account, now live off shore.