Hobson's Pledge racist? Hardly!

elocal Magazine, ed. 188. 28 October 2016

Unless you’ve been hiding under rock over the last few weeks, you’ll know that a group of us has launched Hobson’s Pledge, committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders have equal political rights.

And talk about setting the cat among the pigeons!  As the person most publically associated with the group, I’ve been denounced as racist, a bigot, a redneck, a broken record, and probably a secret member of the Ku Klux Klan.  I’ve had a small number of defenders in the media – Leighton Smith and Paul Henry being two of the best known – but with those few exceptions the media coverage has been uniformly hostile.

But what on earth is racist or bigoted about arguing that all citizens should have equal political rights?  Most of what Hobson’s Pledge is arguing for was long the official policy of the National Party.  As I noted in my article last month, when Bill English was Leader of the National Party he gave a very strong speech supporting the principle that all of us should have equal political rights, and in 2003 he committed a future National Government to scrapping separate Maori electorates, as had been recommended by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System.

When I was Leader of the National Party I made a similar commitment, and so also did John Key in the 2008 election campaign.

There was no hint from the National Party that they would not only support the continuation of separate Maori electorates but would introduce “co-governance” – with tribes having the right to appoint people to many local council committees as of right – on a very wide scale: the Independent Maori Statutory Board with voting rights on most Auckland Council committees, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council having 10 voting tribal appointees on their planning committee, Environment Canterbury having two voting tribal appointees, and more.

The latest moves of this kind involve legislation which will require the Taranaki Regional Council to have six tribal appointees across two of their key committees, a move to change the structure of the Hauraki Gulf Forum governance arrangements so that half its members are appointed by tribes, and legislation which, if passed in its present form, will require all local governments to invite their local tribes into so-called “iwi participation agreements.”

We say that this is totally inconsistent with what the National Party has traditionally stood for and, more serious still, totally inconsistent with New Zealand’s long-term interests.

The arrangements imply that New Zealand should be being run as some kind of “partnership” between those elected by all citizens and those appointed by a small sub-set of New Zealanders who happen to have one or more Maori ancestors (and of course ancestors of other ethnicities also).  Despite the argument of some activist judges, there was nothing about “partnership” in the Treaty of Waitangi.  On the contrary, the Treaty involved chiefs surrendering sovereignty to the Crown, and accepting in return all the rights and privileges of “British subjects”.  And that’s true no matter which version of the Treaty one looks at.

It’s true, as critics have pointed out, that average Maori incomes are lower than the incomes of other New Zealanders.  But most of those on low incomes in New Zealand are not Maori – many of them are Pacifica, Asian, or of European extraction.  We all recognize that in New Zealand those on high incomes have an obligation to help those who need help.  But of course that doesn’t constitute a reason to have separate racially-based political structures.

And while average Maori incomes are lower than those of other New Zealanders, some Maori are among the most successful people in the country, both financially and in other ways.

I recall Ron Mark, himself Maori and currently the Deputy Leader of New Zealand First, arguing on television that when Georgina Beyer can defeat Paul Henry in the rural electorate of Wairarapa, as she did in 1999, New Zealand no longer needs separate Maori electorates.  And with more than 20 Maori Members of Parliament, only seven of them elected in Maori electorates, that is surely correct.

But, some argue, those Maori Members of Parliament who are elected in general electorates, or are in Parliament by virtue of their place on their party lists, don’t have the same concern for “Maori issues” as those elected in the Maori electorates.  Well in my experience most Maori have the same concerns as other New Zealanders – they want access to a decent job, to affordable housing, to good healthcare, and to a good education for their kids.  Everything else comes well down the list of priorities.

But surely Don Brash, you stood on this platform back in 2005 and you lost that election – doesn’t that prove that this one law for all nonsense doesn’t have the support of most New Zealanders?  On the contrary, the 2005 election result proves nothing of the kind.  In that election, the National Party got its highest share of the vote since 1990 despite Labour’s promise of interest-free student loans, the Working for Families package, and Labour’s breaching the Electoral Act by spending some 25% more than the amount it was legally allowed to spend.  And I have no doubt that National’s very good showing in that election, despite everything that Labour threw at us, was in no small part because of support for the things I said in my Orewa speech of 2004.

So despite the abuse, those involved in the Hobson’s Pledge Trust intend to press on.  We believe that it is imperative if New Zealand is to have a prosperous and harmonious future that every citizen has the same political rights.   And actually we’re confident that most New Zealanders agree with us.

Back to Top

Copyright © 2024 Don Brash.