Should New Zealanders have to swear allegiance to Kiwi values?

elocal Magazine, ed. 197. 27 July 2017

In last month’s edition of elocal, I argued that there are strong economic arguments for scaling back quite sharply the number of non-New Zealanders allowed to settle in New Zealand.

But perhaps quite apart from economic considerations, there are other reasons to scale back the size of the immigration programme, related to the difficulty of integrating such a huge number of new New Zealanders into our society.  There are potentially serious social consequences of having such a strong flow of immigrants that the new citizens gather together in racially distinct enclaves, failing to integrate into New Zealand society, and rejecting many of the values which we hold dear.

When I was Leader of the National Party some ten years ago, I wrote an article which argued that there is a need to insist that all those who would migrate to New Zealand sign up to a clear statement in support of our values.  That was motivated in part by the results of a poll which had just been conducted for the UK’s Channel 4.  The poll surveyed the views of 1,000 Muslims living in the UK, and revealed that 30% would like to live under sharia law, 28% would like to see Britain become an Islamic state, 45% believed that the destruction of the twin towers on September 11 was a conspiracy between Israel and the United States, 22% thought the July 7 bombings in London were justified, and 19% had “respect” for Osama bin Laden.

Had I been writing the article more recently, I would no doubt have noted the terrorist incidents perpetrated by European-born Muslims in several major European cities, and the appalling intolerance revealed by Muslims in Jakarta towards the non-Muslim Governor of that city despite Indonesia being officially a secular state.

Surely it stands to reason that those who want to settle in New Zealand should sign up to New Zealand values, even if they don’t need to pledge that all their sons should play rugby or sail catamarans.

The first draft of last month’s article included a strong statement in favour of requiring such a pledge.  The sort of thing which I had in mind was the Australian Values Statement, which migrants to Australia are required to sign:

I understand:

  • Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good;
  • Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background;
  • The English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.

I undertake to respect these values of Australian society during my stay in Australia and to obey the laws of Australia.

I understand that, if I should seek to become an Australian citizen:

  • Australian citizenship is a shared identity, a common bond which unites all Australians while respecting their diversity;
  • Australian citizenship involves reciprocal rights and responsibilities.  The responsibilities of Australian citizenship include obeying Australian laws, including those relating to voting at elections and serving on a jury.

If I meet the legal qualifications for becoming an Australian citizen and my application is approved, I understand that I would have to pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people.

I couldn’t see too many reasons not to require signing up to a statement of this kind.  But I discussed this with two friends, and both urged me not to include such a recommendation.

One said that it would be quite difficult to find agreement even among New Zealanders for anything but the blandest of statements.  I found this surprising at first, but then he reminded me of how recently views have changed about, for example, same sex marriage, and how views on whether women should be priests still vary considerably.   Some New Zealanders strongly favour the introduction of a written constitution, while for others the idea is anathema.  Some New Zealanders would want to include a commitment to uphold the monarchy, while for others the monarchy is an anachronism which will shortly be consigned to the dustbin of history.  Still others would want to include a statement pledging “respect for the planet” and a commitment to restrain carbon dioxide emissions.

My other friend reminded me of the pressure there would be to include a strong commitment to “the principles of the Treaty”, and the “partnership” which, some contend, the Treaty created.

I believe very strongly that the Treaty of Waitangi was a very simple document which provided for just three things: the surrender of sovereignty by the 500 or so chiefs who signed it; the guarantee by the Crown of the property rights of the chiefs in return for that surrender of sovereignty; and a firm commitment, in Article III, that all New Zealanders would have equal rights.  To me, that is the only possible meaning of the Treaty, taking into account the actual words of the Treaty, the events that led up to its signing and the speeches made by the chiefs at the time.

But it is quite clear that, thanks to the quite mischievous brain-washing which has occurred in recent decades throughout much of the education sector, there are now a great many New Zealanders who have swallowed the nonsense that somehow the chiefs did not really surrender sovereignty at all, that they were guaranteed extensive and permanent rights to water and the coastline, and that descendants of those first settlers are somehow entitled to a greater say in the governance of the country than those descended from more recent arrivals.

If we could adopt the Australian Values Statement, simply changing “Australia” to “New Zealand”, I would on balance favour New Zealand’s having such a statement, notwithstanding the misgivings of my first friend.  But if, as seems probable, any New Zealand values statement composed in the present climate involved signing up to the absurd notion that there are some mysterious “principles of the Treaty” which imply that those New Zealanders who have one or more Maori ancestors (along with ancestors of other ethnicities in all cases) have superior political rights to the rest of us, I would have none of it.

Back to Top

Copyright © 2024 Don Brash.