The Sep 2000 Peters Speech

In case NZ First try and delete it from their website, the full speech is over the break. Read his full speech, read the far less inflammatory things Brash said, and then consider how Peters has called Brash “evil” and made clear comparisons to Hitler.

Then consider that this is the guy who Helen has appointed as Foreign Minister.

13 Sep 2000

Rt Hon Winston Peters
Speech
THE WAY AHEAD – ONE COUNTRY, ONE ELECTORAL FRANCHISE

Over the past few days the old parties – National and Labour -have been arguing over a Treaty of Waitangi clause that has been inserted in a free trade agreement with Singapore.

National began these negotiations with Singapore – and placed a Treaty clause in this Agreement (without objection from ACT) – and now Labour wants to sign off the deal.

The problem is that Labour cannot get the support of the Alliance or the Greens so it has to look at National BUT National now says the Treaty of Waitangi clause is offensive to it.

So, while Singapore looks on in total bewilderment, we have these old parties arguing about a 160 year old document in an international trade agreement.

Miss Clark has accused Mrs Shipley of playing the race card while Mrs Shipley accuses Miss Clark of arrogance.

The real Question of course is: “What on earth was this clause about the Treaty of Waitangi doing in a Free Trade Agreement with Singapore in the first place?”

It really is a simple issue. Either it is a good deal for ALL New Zealanders – or it is a bad deal for all of us.

There are far more important issues in this free trade agreement than some vague clause about the Treaty of Waitangi – a clause that is virtually identical to that which National wrote into the World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services in 1994.

That has a status superior to any clause in a Bilateral Agreement – a point which commentators completely overlook.

There are questions of genetic engineering, shelf companies, and of exempting investment under fifty million dollars from Overseas Investment Commission approval.

It is time for National and Labour to put aside their Waitangi silliness. It has developed into madness.

Since 1984 both these parties have established a track record of separatist policies as far as Maori and the rest of New Zealand are concerned.

For every silly divisive policy adopted by Labour between 1984 and 1990 there was an equally silly one acted upon by National during its three terms in Government.

Now that Labour is back on the Treasury benches the silliness is worse than ever.

Since returning to Government Labour has promoted:

1. Separate Maori representation on the new Health Boards being set up.

2. Legislation before Parliament to set up separate Maori seats on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

3. A separate Treaty of Waitangi reference under the new Employment Relations Bill.

The list goes on.

These vague clauses are grave constitutional issues, yet they are being left to unelected judges to interpret.

This is dangerous for the entire country but the greatest danger is for Maoridom.

It lulls Maori into thinking that someone is addressing their needs, like this Government’s separatist driven “Closing the Gaps” programme.

One billion dollars of taxpayers’ money is being set aside over the next four years for this programme which is based on race – and not the universal needs of all citizens as it should be.

While the rest of the world fights to get rid of racist policies we are taking a giant leap backwards by sneaking them into our laws to the extent they creep into international trade agreements.

In1984 Labour passed Treaty of Waitangi legislation taking the Waitangi Tribunal’s ambit of considerations back to 1840. (And remember that ACT’s Richard Prebble was a senior Cabinet Minister then).

In 1986 Labour passed Fisheries legislation issuing transferable quota – this was the first sale of taxpayer owned assets by the Labour Party. At the time six hundred Maori families relying on fishing for a living went out of business. They were all “little people”.

In 1988 the Treaty of Waitangi (State Owned Enterprises) Act was passed which meant that any decision made by the Waitangi Tribunal was mandatory for Government to follow.

This has caused constant confusion and endless problems.

Then remember National in 1990 – without consulting his Maori Affairs spokesman – Jim Bolger announced that National would settle all outstanding Treaty issues within ten years.

National had nine of those ten years to deliver but there are now more Treaty claims than ever!

Now the “National pot is calling the Labour kettle black” over the Treaty clauses in the Singapore Free Trade Agreement.

In a social context non Maori are now being labelled as “manuhiri” – or “strangers”!

We have ministers like Tariana Turia likening the circumstances of the Taranaki conflict to a Holocaust – and we have former National cabinet ministers trying to make political capital out of her speech.

The Minister’s comments were not so strange when we remember that National received a Waitangi Tribunal report which made reference to a Holocaust at Taranaki.

At no stage did National ever ask for this word to be withdrawn, or changed.

In fact, John Luxton the then Minister of Maori Affairs, and the then Treaty Negotiations Minister, Doug Graham, said – and I quote:

“I hope that others will take the opportunity to read the report’s overview, which outlines the history of the main aspects of the Taranaki claim.

The report describes the real and present day effect of our shared history and very clearly sets out the historical factual situation in Taranaki from pre-European times to the present day…..”

The hypocrisy of these people knows no bounds. There is nothing so hard to do as to climb off a high horse gracefully.

The fact of the matter is that there WAS a Holocaust in New Zealand in European times and it was visited on the Chatham Islands Moriori by Taranaki Maori.

The peaceful people of this remote part of New Zealand were invaded, enslaved and annihilated.

An entire society was wiped out. The last fullblooded Chatham Islander, Tommy Solomon, died in 1936.

The Chatham Islanders – on their lonely island landscape – had created one of the few genuinely non-violent societies in history.

When the Taranaki Maori arrived these people of peace became victims of genocide to the point where they were exterminated.

We must be honest about our history.

So, why, in the name of political correctness, are the separatists and sickly white liberals trying to create a myth of Maori as law abiding, peace loving, brown skinned angels living in some pre-colonial paradise.

The effects of colonisation WERE, of course, dramatic.

The arrival of Europeans here had a huge impact on Maori but it was far less destructive than the mass exploitation that occurred in many other countries.

And colonisation cannot be blamed for every ill facing Maori.

There is a lesson for New Zealand to learn from the experience of countries in Africa and East Asia.

Africa is full of failed democracies and economies. Black dictators bankrupt their people. Opposition parties disappear. There is widespread poverty, disease and misery. Warring tribes commit genocide on each other.

The leaders of these unfortunate people amass personal fortunes and spend desperately needed money on projects of self aggrandizement.

At the same time they blame all their ills on colonisation and imperialism.

Any European who dares to offer much needed advice or criticise these people is immediately labelled as racist – nothing else strikes more fear in the heart of a politically correct sickly white liberal.

So, the aid money keeps pouring in to these countries, propping up the status quo and very little is done to help the African people develop through improved health, education and housing.

Africa keeps looking back to blame the present on the past.

If we look at the countries of East Asia we see countries which also suffered under colonial exploitation or invasion.

Countries like Singapore, Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, parts of China.

Why are these countries thriving while the African states are, in the main, bogged down in debt and poverty?

Perhaps it is the basic discipline of the people of East Asia who have to compete for resources to survive.

They look forward – not back – and forge ahead using education and technology while the Africans break up into warring tribal factions and seek more aid to compensate for their “colonial corrupted past”.

There is a lesson for us here.

It is not politically correct for a white expert to tell ruthless black dictators that colonial imperialism is not the REAL reason for their plight.

And this is the trump card the Maori separatists always play against the white, hand wringing liberals in this country.

The trump card is that it is racist to criticise Maori.

This is the greatest fear of white liberals. This is the greatest fear of European cabinet ministers. The fear of being labelled a racist!

This is why we are backwards and inwards looking.

This is why we have to put Treaty of Waitangi clauses in international trade agreements.

This is why political correctness permeates every fabric of our lives.

If Maori want to find the real enemies hindering their progress I say look no further than the political correctness fostered by white liberals and the lack of internal discipline of Maori themselves.

Why is it that descendants of the Chinese goldminers in Otago are now doctors, lawyers and successful business people?

Why is it that within a few years of arriving here – unable to even speak the language properly and living in an alien culture – many refugee Asians are setting up successful businesses or gaining top marks in our schools and universities?

Why are Maori not doing this? The reason is because too many Maori are being taught, not the need for discipline and achievement, but that the European coloniser owes them something!

Maori development must not be strangled by political correctness and a legal interpretation of a vague document of good intention, written 160 years ago.

There ARE genuine land grievances, and genuine wrongs which must be righted.

But this will never be achieved by the separatist dogma being preached now – the dogma that threatens to tear us apart.

MAORI SEATS

For more than 133 years, we have had two electoral systems in New Zealand.

One for Maori and the other for non-Maori.

When representative Government began here in 1852 the right to vote was subject to a property qualification.

Only males aged 21 years of age and over, who leased or owned land over a specific value were entitled to vote.

An overwhelming number of Maori at the time held their land in common, not on an individual basis, and therefore most did not qualify.

So, the Maori Representation Act of 1867 provided a practical solution to this problem by creating a separate arrangement for Maori.

The precedent for this was an Act of 1862 which allowed Otago goldmining communities to vote because these men also failed to meet the property qualification.

So, the reason for setting up separate seats in the first place was the lack of a property qualification as defined by the English system – it had nothing to do with the Treaty of Waitangi.

And those Maori who DID meet the property qualification were entitled to vote in both the Maori and European constituencies.

It was also thought at the time by the colonial powers that the Maori seats would foster Maori cooperation with European institutions and laws.

However by 1893 this property qualification for voting in both European and Maori seats was abolished and the system that we have now was set in place.

We might well ask ourselves now what this 133 years of separate political representation has achieved for Maori.

It certainly brought forward some magnificent Maori leaders like Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Peter Buck.

But looking at things in today’s brutal terms we might well ponder:

The high proportion of prison inmatesThe high level of family violenceThe high rate of pre-nuptial birthsThe high levels of unemployment The low health and nutrition standardsThe low educational achievement.

MAORI MPS

And how do the latest crop of Maori MPs compare to those giants of the past – Ngata and Buck?

Those men with a vision for Maori that kept the culture but embraced the best of European education, health and housing methods.

Well the answer to that is that most of the later MPs compare very unfavourably.

They actually want to drag Maori back to the past instead of helping them prepare for the future.

In 1996 New Zealand First won all five Maori seats on a policy of “One Country – Different Cultures.”

That is why we called the party New Zealand First – because it was for all New Zealanders.

I made that speech hundreds of times but when most of our Maori MPs arrived in Parliament they immediately set out on a path of separate development.

Labour’s Maori MPs are doing exactly the same and so are the Alliance MPs even though some arrived in Parliament on the Party List vote.

The political posturing that now goes with the Maori seats amounts to pure racial poison.

Tariana Turia’s comments about a holocaust sickened most New Zealanders.

Earlier, Parekura Horomia, the new Minister of Maori Affairs claimed that apartheid in the education system kept him off the school bus when he was a child.

This claim was, of course, pure fiction – as was pointed out in the media by the person who sat next to him on the bus.

It appears to suit the purposes of some Maori MPs to foster this image of separateness.

They rave on about the needs of “our people”, and guilt trip white liberals, but in practical terms they actually achieve very little.

The MMP electoral system introduced in 1996 delivered more for Maori representation than any separate franchise ever could.

There were five of us in Parliament ten years ago. Today under MMP there are sixteen.

The Royal Commission on the Electoral system recommended abolishing the Maori seats with the advent of MMP.

So, why are they still there?

We say it is time for them to go. We must end a dual electoral system in which the only qualification to vote is based on RACE – in some cases as diluted as one part in five hundred and twelve.

Under the Electoral Act, anybody of Maori descent or claims to be a Maori can apply for registration on the Maori Roll.

(Maori can also apply to go on the General Roll and in fact over half of them are on it!)

In 1993 there were four Maori seats – in 1999 there were six.

It has been estimated that over the next forty years or so, up to thirty per cent of the population will have some Maori blood – in many cases only a few drops.

What is to be feared is the prospect of demands for 30 or 40 Maori seats.

That would be plainly ridiculous.

And it is just as ridiculous to look at some of these benefactors of Treaty claims who are of mixed descent.

Ask yourself, if a claimant is one eighth Maori, does he or she get one eighth of the amount they would have received from the claim if they had been of full Maori blood.

Or does the seven eighths European part of that person pay?

What is to stop a very wealthy person, say with less than one per cent Maori blood, benefiting from a Treaty claim. Does the other ninety nine per cent pay?

The mind boggles.

If New Zealand is ever going to achieve any sort of future for its children, we will have to make some hard decisions. We need to make them NOW.

We can decide to be like Zimbabwe, fight each other, and wallow in the grievances of a colonial past, or we can choose the example of Singapore with its harmonious race relations, and vibrant prosperity.

A single electoral franchise with all New Zealanders voting from the same Electoral Roll is needed now.

The real issues of human development, Health, Education, Housing and Employment and Wealth are what wise governments focus on.

In New Zealand we have been caught in a time warp, obsessed with the past, we neglect our present and our future and Maori and New Zealand is paying an enormous price for this failure.

Hence forth economic and social policy must be based on need not race.

To me the choice about our future is an easy one. If we continue on our present separatist path we do so at our peril.

We need not – indeed we must not.