On a sticky day in January, dozens of nannies and aunties from Tainui shook and waved fronds of greenery as they called manuhiri onto Tuurangawaewae Marae.

More than 10,000 people had responded to a rare call for unity from the Māori King to discuss what the new government’s policies meant for Māori. It set the scene for what became a massive year for te ao Māori.

A few months beforehand, just in time for Christmas 2023, the newly formed government had announced its coalition agreements.

The agreements included either rolling back previous initiatives considered progressive for Māori or creating new policies that many in Māoridom and beyond perceived to be an attack on Māori rights and te Tiriti o Waitangi.

So as the rest of the country wound down for the year, te ao Māori went to work, planning for the year ahead.

This year saw everything from controversial debates about the place of New Zealand’s founding document to mourning the loss of the Māori king, and a viral haka.

A call for unity — how 2024 started
The Hui-aa-motu in January was the first sign of the year to come.

Iwi from across the motu arrived at Tūrangawaewae, including Ngāpuhi, an iwi which doesn’t typically follow the Kiingitanga, suggesting a growing sense of shared purpose in Māoridom.

At the centre of the discussions was the ACT Party’s Treaty Principles Bill, which aims to redefine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and enshrine them in law.

Māori also expressed their concerns over the axing of Te Aka Whai Ora, (the Māori Health Authority), the re-introduction of referenda on Māori wards, removing references to Tiriti o Waitangi in legislation, and policies related to the use and funding of te reo Māori.

The day was overwhelmingly positive. Visitors were treated with manaakitanga, all receiving packed lunches and ice blocks to ward off the heat.

Raising some eyebrows, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon chose not to attend, sending newly-appointed Māori-Crown Relations Minister Tama Potaka and Māori Affairs select committee chair Dan Bidois instead.

Other than the sheer number of people who showed up, the hui was memorable for these words, spoken by Kiingi Tuheitia as he addressed the crowds, and quoted repeatedly as the year progressed:

“The best protest we can make right now is being Māori. Be who we are. Live our values. Speak our reo. Care for our mokopuna, our awa, our maunga.

“Just be Māori. Be Māori all day, every day. We are here. We are strong.”

The momentum continued, with the mauri of Hui-ā-Motu passed to Rātana pā next, and then to Waitangi in February.

The largest Waitangi in years
Waitangi Day has long been a place of activism and discussion, and this year was no exception.

February saw the most well-attended Waitangi in years. Traffic in and out of Paihia was at a standstill for hours as people flocked to the historic town, to discuss, protest, and commemorate the country’s founding document.

Veteran Māori activist Hone Harawira addressed David Seymour, the architect of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill and ACT Party Leader, directly.

“You want to gut the treaty? In front of all of these people? Hell no! You and your shitty-arse bill are going down the toilet.”

A new activist group, ‘Toitū te Tiriti’, also seized the moment to make themselves known.

Organisers Eru Kapa-Kingi and Hohepa Thompson led two dozen protesters onto the atea (courtyard) of Te Whare Rūnanga during the pōwhiri for government officials, peacefully singing over David Seymour’s speech.

“Whakarongo, e noho . . .” they began — “Listen, sit down”.

It was just the start of a movement which led to a nationwide hīkoi from the top of the North Island to Wellington.

Record number of urgent Waitangi Tribunal claims
In the past year, the government’s policies have faced significant formal scrutiny too, with a record number of urgent claims heard before the Waitangi Tribunal in such a short period of time.

The claims have been wide-ranging and contentious, including:

• the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority,
• ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill,
• limiting te reo Māori use,
• reinstating referendums for Māori wards, and
• the repeal of smokefree legislation.

Seymour has also criticised the function of the tribunal itself. In May, he argued it had become “increasing activist”, going “well beyond its brief”.

“The tribunal appears to regard itself as a parallel government that can intervene in the actual government’s policy-making process,” Seymour said.

The government has made no secret of its plan to review the tribunal’s future role, a coalition promise.

The review is expected to refocus the tribunal’s scope, purpose and nature back to its “original intent”. While the government has not yet released any specific details about the review, it’s anticipated that Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka will oversee it.

Te Kiingi o te Kōtahitanga — mourning the loss of Kiingi Tuheitia
In August, when the seas were choppy, te ao Māori lost a rangatira.

Te iwi Māori were shocked and saddened by the death of Kiingi Tuheitia Pootatau te Wherowhero VII, who just days before had celebrated his 18th year on the throne.

Once again, thousands arrived outside the bright-red, ornately-carved gates of Tuurangawaewae, waiting to say one last goodbye.

The tangi, which lasted five days, saw tears, laughter and plenty of stories about Tuheitia, who has been called “Te Kiingi o Te Kōtahitanga”, the King of Unity.

On the final day, led by Kaihaka, his body was driven the two blocks in a black hearse to the banks of Waikato River. He was placed on a waka specially crafted for him, and made the journey to his final resting place at the top of Taupiri Maunga, alongside his tūpuna.

Just hours before, Tuheitia’s youngest child and only daughter, Nga wai hono i te po was announced as the new monarch of the Kiingitanga. The news was met with applause and tears from the crowd.

At just 27 years old, the new Kuini signals a societal shift, where a new generation of rangatahi who know their whakapapa, their reo, and are strong in their identity as Māori, are now stepping up.

The new generation of Māori activists
An example of this “kohanga generation” is Aotearoa’s youngest MP, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.

Elected in 2023, the 22-year-old gained international attention after a video of her leading a haka in Parliament and tearing up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill made headlines around the world.

Maipi-Clarke and several other opposition MPs performed the Ka Mate haka in response to the Treaty Principles Bill, a move that cost her a 24-hour suspension from the debating chamber.

At the same time, another up-and-coming leader within Māoridom, Eru Kapa-Kingi, led a hīkoi from the top of the North Island to Wellington, in what is believed to be the largest protest to ever arrive at Parliament.

The hīkoi mō te Tiriti was the culmination of a year of action, and organisers predicted it would be big. But almost no one anticipated the true scale of the crowd.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has announced that he will not be travelling to the Treaty grounds in Northland for Waitangi Day commemorations in February next year, opting to attend events elsewhere.

Māori met the decision with mixed emotions — some calling it a missed opportunity, and others pleased.

We’re set for a big year to come, with submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill closing on January 7, the ensuing select committee process will be sure to dominate the conversation at Waitangi 2025 and beyond.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The New Zealand fuel company Z Energy is swapping out street names for “correct” kupu on service stops around the country, with the help of local hapū.

When Z took over 226 fuel sites from Shell in 2010, the easy solution was to name the respective stations after the streets they were on, or near.

But when it named the Kahikatea Drive station in Kirikiriroa Z — K Drive, the company’s Māori advisor questioned the abbreviation.

“Kahikatea is the correct name. That led to a bigger conversation about where are we with our knowledge as we start to learn a bit more about te reo Māori and acknowledging interconnected-ness of all things, like, where else are there opportunities to do it,” Z Energy customer general manager Andy Baird said.

After 12 months of whakawhanaungatanga (relationship building), the company was guided by Te Hā o te Whenua o Kirikiriroa on changing the name of Z Dinsdale to Z Tuhikaramea.

That led to two other stations being renamed — New Plymouth’s Z Courtenay Street became Z Huatoki, while Hamilton’s Five Cross Roads station became Z Te Papanui.

“This is not about ticking a box per se, this is about a bigger sort of commitment that we have to te reo Māori and obviously to the communities that we operate in, so it’s a much bigger broader long-term programme,” Baird said.

Internal te reo drive
There had also been an internal drive to incorporate more use of te reo, kicking off each day with karakia, Baird said.

It added more of a connection between the company and Māori traditions.

“We’ve been adding bilingual language inside the sites but we have equally taken the time to make sure that we’re getting the right dialects as the regions as we go through it.

“Part of the project this year was to sort of understand the process that we go through in terms of engagement with mana whenua and how they want things to happen and occur, and how we can come together to make that really a great outcome for local communities we operate in.”

The company could have changed the station names off the bat, but Baird said consulting with local hapū and iwi was the right thing to do.

“The opportunity to meet them, to start to engage with mana whenua and to build a relationship with them and to do something that they’re just as proud of as we are, was just as important as the actual name.”

Each site’s name was gifted by the hapū, with careful consideration of the history of the whenua.

Facebook community included
Ngāti Te Whiti hapū in Ngāmotu was thrilled to play a big part in renaming the Courtenay Street petrol station and included its Facebook community in making the decision.

It had a kete of three names that went to a vote — the name Huatoki was favoured.

Julie Healey of Ngāti Te Whiti said it was only fitting to have the name Huatoki, as the awa flowed just around the corner from the petrol station.

“Huatoki is probably all the life essence of New Plymouth at the beginning. We have the pā Puke Ariki at the front and then we have the other pā around, I think there’s about five or six different pā in that area.”

The hapū was in its rebuilding phase and was working towards a Huatoki restoration plan with the New Plymouth District Council, so when Z approached it at the start of the year, the timing could not have been better, she said.

“When we were approached, I just thought straight away ‘this is going to work brilliantly with our Huātoki’, and I was hoping whānau would vote that way, and they did. It just made sense, it was consistent.”

She praised Z for taking the right steps to engage with locals.

“One of our whānau, Damon Ritai, met the people outside Puke Ariki Museum, talked to them about the museum, the designs, the cultural expression on the museum, the meaning of the different things of whakapapa on the ceremonial doors, all the names that were in the foyer, and explained everything about those.”

Cultural induction hīkoi
The cultural induction hīkoi ended at Te Whare Honanga (Taranaki Cathedral) where they had refreshments.

Then, the hapū worked on the dialect, something Healey triple-checked before giving the nod of approval.

“This is about reclaiming our language and culture, not as a political act, but as a celebration.

“It’s always a good opportunity for hapū to try and get those names, you know, renaming before the colonial names, taking things back to language and culture.”

Z Energy aimed to rename more petrol stations but first, more whakawhanaungatanga, Baird said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

BACKGROUNDER: By Sarah Shamim

A fight for Māori indigenous rights drew more than 50,000 protesters to the New Zealand Parliament in the capital Wellington yesterday.

A nine-day-long Hīkoi, or peaceful march — a Māori tradition — was undertaken in protest against a bill that seeks to “reinterpret” the country’s 184-year-old founding Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed between British imperial colonisers and the Indigenous Māori tangata whenua (people).

Some had also been peacefully demonstrating outside the Parliament building for nine days before the protest concluded yesterday.

On November 14, the controversial Treaty Principles Bill was introduced in Parliament for a preliminary first reading vote. Māori parliamentarians staged a haka (a traditional ceremonial dance) to disrupt the vote, temporarily halting parliamentary proceedings.

So, what was the Treaty of Waitangi, what are the proposals for altering it, and why has it become a flashpoint for protests in New Zealand?

Who are the Māori?
The Māori people are the original residents of the two large main islands now known as New Zealand, having lived there for several centuries.

The Māori came to the uninhabited islands of New Zealand from East Polynesia on canoe voyages betweemn 1200 and 1300. Over hundreds of years of isolation, they developed their own distinct culture and language. Māori people speak te reo Māori and have different tribes, or iwi, spread throughout the country.

The two islands were originally called Aotearoa by the Māori. The name New Zealand was adopted by the colonisers who took control under the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

While Dutch explorer Abel Tasman was the first European to “discover” New Zealand in 1642, calling it Staten Land, three years later Dutch cartographers renamed the land Nova Zeelandia after the Dutch province of Zeeland.

British explorer James Cook later anglicised the name to New Zealand.

New Zealand became a “dominion” under the British crown in 1907 after being a colony.

It gained full independence from Britain in 1947 when it adopted the Statute of Westminster.

However, for a century the Māori people had suffered mass killings, land grabs and cultural erasure at the hands of colonial settlers.

There are currently 978,246 Māori in New Zealand, constituting around 19 percent of the country’s population of 5.3 million. They are partially represented by Te Pāti Māori — the Māori Party — which currently holds six of the 123 seats in Parliament.

What was the Treaty of Waitangi?
On February 6, 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi, also called Te Tiriti o Waitangi or just Te Tiriti in te reo, was signed between the British Crown and around 500 Māori chiefs, or rangatira. The treaty was the founding document of New Zealand and officially made New Zealand a British colony.

While the treaty was presented as a measure to resolve differences between the Māori and the British, the English and te reo versions of the treaty actually feature some stark differences.

The te reo Māori version guarantees “rangatiratanga” to the Māori chiefs. This translates to “self-determination” and guarantees the Māori people the right to govern themselves.

However, the English translation says that the Maori chiefs “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty”, making no mention of self-rule for the Maori.

The English translation does guarantee the Māori “full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries”.

“The English draft talks about the British settlers having full authority and control over Māori in the whole country,” Kassie Hartendorp, a Māori community organiser and director at community campaigning organisation ActionStation Aotearoa, told Al Jazeera.

Hartendorp explained that the te reo version includes the term “kawanatanga”, which in historical and linguistic context “gives British settlers the opportunity to set up their own government structure to govern their own people but they would not limit the sovereignty of Indigenous people”.

“We never ceded sovereignty, we never handed it over. We gave a generous invitation to new settlers to create their own government because they were unruly and lawless at the time,” said Hartendorp.

In the decades after 1840, however, 90 percent of Māori land was taken by the British Crown. Both versions of the treaty have been repeatedly breached and Māori people have continued to suffer injustice in New Zealand even after independence.

In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent body to adjudicate treaty matters. The tribunal attempts to remedy treaty breaches and navigate differences between the treaty’s two texts.

Over time, billions of dollars have been negotiated in settlements over breaches of the treaty, particularly relating to the widespread seizure of Māori land.

However, other injustices have also occurred. Between 1950 and 2019, about 200,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults were subjected to physical and sexual abuse in state and church care, and a commission found Māori children were more vulnerable to the abuse than others.

On November 12 this year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon issued an apology to these victims, but it was criticised by Māori survivors for being inadequate. One criticism was that the apology did not take the treaty into account.

While the treaty’s principles are not set in stone and are flexible, it is a significant historical document that upholds Māori rights.

What does the Treaty Principles Bill propose?
The Treaty Principles Bill was introduced by Member of Parliament David Seymour, leader of the libertarian ACT Party, a minor partner in New Zealand’s rightwing coalition government. Seymour himself is of Māori heritage.

The party launched a public information campaign about the bill on February 7 this year.

The ACT Party asserts that the treaty has been misinterpreted over the decades and that this has led to the formation of a dual system for New Zealanders, where Māori and pākehā (white) New Zealanders have different political and legal rights. Seymour says that misinterpretations of the treaty’s meaning have effectively given Māori people special treatment.

The bill calls for an end to “division by race”.

Seymour said that the principle of “ethnic quotas in public institutions”, for example, is contrary to the principle of equality.

The bill seeks to set specific definitions of the treaty’s principles, which are currently flexible and open to interpretation. These principles would then apply to all New Zealanders equally, whether they are Māori or not.

According to Together for Te Tiriti, an initiative led by ActionStation Aotearoa, the bill will allow the New Zealand government to govern all New Zealanders and consider all New Zealanders equal under the law.

Activists say this will effectively disadvantage indigenous Māori people because they have been historically oppressed.

Many, including the Waitangi Tribunal, say this will lead to the erosion of Māori rights. A statement by ActionStation Aotearoa says that the bill’s principles “do not at all reflect the meaning” of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Why is the bill so controversial?
The bill is strongly opposed by political parties in New Zealand on both the left and the right, and Maori people have criticised it on the basis that it undermines the treaty and its interpretation.

Gideon Porter, a Maori journalist from New Zealand, told Al Jazeera that most Maori, as well as historians and legal experts, agree that the bill is an “attempt to redefine decades of exhaustive research and negotiated understandings of what constitute ‘principles’ of the treaty”.

Porter added that those critical of the bill believe “the ACT Party within this coalition government is taking upon itself to try and engineer things so that Parliament gets to act as judge, jury and executioner”.

In the eyes of most Maori, he said, the ACT Party is “simply hiding its racism behind a facade of ‘we are all New Zealanders with equal rights’ mantra”.

The Waitangi Tribunal released a report on August 16 saying that it found the bill “breached the Treaty principles of partnership and reciprocity, active protection, good government, equity, redress, and the … guarantee of rangatiratanga”.

Another report by the tribunal seen by The Guardian newspaper said: “If this bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty … in modern times.”

What process must the bill go through now?
For a bill to become law in New Zealand, it must go through three rounds in Parliament: first when it is introduced, then when MPs suggest amendments and finally, when they vote on the amended bill. Since the total number of MPs is 123, at least 62 votes are needed for a bill to pass, David MacDonald, a political science professor at the University of Guelph in Canada, told Al Jazeera.

Besides the six Māori Party seats, the New Zealand Parliament comprises 34 seats held by the Labour Party; 14 seats held by the Green Party of Aotearoa; 49 seats held by the National Party; 11 seats held by the ACT Party; and eight seats held by the New Zealand First Party.

“The National Party leaders including the PM and other cabinet ministers and the leaders of the other coalition party [New Zealand] First have all said they won’t support the bill beyond the committee stage. It is highly unlikely that the bill will receive support from any party other than ACT,” MacDonald said.

When the bill was heard for its first round in Parliament last week, Māori party lawmaker Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up her copy of the legislation and led the haka.

Is the bill likely to pass?
The chances of the bill becoming law are “zero”, Porter said.

He said the ACT’s coalition partners had “adamantly promised” to vote down the bill in the next stage. Additionally, all the opposition parties will also vote against it.

“They only agreed to allow it to go this far as part of their ‘coalition agreement’ so they could govern,” Porter said.

New Zealand’s current coalition government was formed in November 2023 after an election that took place a month earlier. It comprises the National Party, ACT and New Zealand First.

While rightwing parties have not given a specific reason why they will oppose the bill, Hartendorp said New Zealand First and the New Zealand National Party would likely vote in line with public opinion, which largely opposes it.

Why are people protesting if the bill is doomed to fail?
The protests are not against the bill alone.

“This latest march is a protest against many coalition government anti-Māori initiatives,” Porter said.

Many believe that the conservative coalition government, which took office in November 2023, has taken measures to remove “race-based politics”. The Māori people are not happy with this and believe that it will undermine their rights.

These measures include removing a law that gave the Maori a say in environmental matters. The government also abolished the Maori Health Authority in February this year.

Despite the bill being highly likely to fail, many believe that just by allowing the bill to be tabled in Parliament, the coalition government has ignited dangerous social division.

For example, former conservative Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has said that just putting forth the bill is sowing division in New Zealand, and she warned of potential “civil war”.

Sarah Shamim is a freelance writer and assistant producer at Al Jazeera Media Network, where this article was first published.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Last night’s Matariki drone show was an emotional experience for some of the thousands who huddled under the glow at the edge of Lake Rotorua on the eve of Aotearoa’s national indigenous holiday today.

The Aronui Indigenous Arts Festival is hosting the first ever matauranga Māori story told with 160 drones over the Rotorua Lake last night and tonight.

The show is created by Te Arawa artists Cian Elyse White and Mataia Keepa, who were helped to tell the story by Rangitiaria Tibble and James Webster.

In both te reo Māori and English, the show tells the stories of environmental markers connected to the star cluster.

Lynmore Primary School deputy principal Lisa Groot went with a group of tamariki from the school.

The teachers had spent time together remembering those who had died in the past year, and so the display hit deep.

“The waka picks the stars up on the way, seeing it in the drone show made us quite emotional.

‘So simple to understand’
“It was so simple for everyone to understand.”

She said the group had wanted to join up for the event.

“We wanted to finish our night together, it was a beautiful way to do it.”

Frances Wharerahi said to be part of the Matariki festivities gave the children te ao Māori experiences alongside whānau.

The show was appreciated by a wide audience, and Wharerahi said as she looked around at who was watching and there were old and young standing with “people from all parts of the world”.

A statement from the charitable trust said it believed that while the drone show was a risk for a reasonably new trust, it had paid off.

“Arts is an essential service. Arts deserves investment.

‘Tough time for people’
“It’s a tough time for people at the moment with the current state of inflation and the economic climate, however, events that deliver on social impact and the uplift of communities that can be brought together under a positive premise are important to our livelihood.

“These events sustain us and give our future generations something to aspire towards.”

Rotorua Trust is among the major funders of at least at $10,000, and in-kind partners helping to promote, volunteer or support include Bay Trust, Te Kuirau Marae, Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Rotorua Lakes Council.

Aronui Indigenous Arts Festival was founded in 2019 and aimed to create a platform for Rotorua arts talent.

The charitable trust is made up of local community arts and business leaders.

Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air. Published as a collaboration.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Collectiveness at it most potent has been called asabiyya by macrohistorian and cliodynamicist Peter Turchin. At its least potent, collectiveness is a recipe for social division, top-heaviness, escalating inequality, and societal breakdown.

The present ‘debates’ in Aotearoa New Zealand – ostensibly about Te Tiriti, the Treaty of Waitangi – represent a case in point. Increased bipartisanship festers, with the two sides largely talking past each other.

Pre-contact indigenous culture in Aotearoa New Zealand can be characterised as on the collectivist side of the collective-individual spectrum, at least with respect to tribal Iwi; whereas anglo-celtic culture was and is much more individualist. The protagonists on the Māori side of our present governance-wars are rhetorically harking back to the more collectivist worldview of their ancestral predecessors. And they are indulging in forms of co-sovereignty rhetoric that border on separate governance, without much explanation of what that means for individual Aotearoans.

One aspect of the more collectivist conceptual apparatus is the language, Te Reo. There is no explicit plural form. The word Māori covers Māori as a collective (or as a set of tribal collectives) and Māori as a set of individuals. While non-Māori used to refer to Māori as ‘Maoris’, this is simply not done in polite circles anymore. (I remember in 1984, how the leader of the “New Zelland Party” used to refer to “the Marries”.) Yet I do it here, as a way to emphasise my differentiation of collective Māori from individual ‘Maoris’.

In addition to pre-contact cultural differences in relation to the collective-individual spectrum, the established political Left and the established political Right (at least as we understand those terms in Aotearoa New Zealand; the United States has muddied those waters) define themselves through that spectrum. So Māori on the Left of politics have two predispositions towards collectivism. (Here we must note that the present ‘sovereignty debate’ is at least as much a debate within Māori as between Māori and non-Māori; the principal antagonists as well as the principal protagonists are conspicuously Māori. Twenty-first century Māori culture is by no means as collectivist as the rhetoric of the protagonists conveys; the divisions are Left versus Right, with a cultural overlay.)

Vertical Equity and ‘Targeting’; trickle-down or micro-management

Vertical equity is not a liberal concept (refer to my To be (a) liberal). Whereas horizontal equity means ‘treating equals equally’ – a concept central to (individualist) liberalism – vertical equity means ‘treating unequals unequally’. Discrimination. The liberals of the political Right, who emphasise the targeting of social services and public income distribution, square this illiberal circle by emphasising policies which solely target ‘need’; not race nor religion, not sex nor gender.

The political ‘progressives’ of the Left emphasise a collective form of targeting, but cannot (or refuse to) individualise this. Thus they may advocate more resources for Māori (and often tag-on Pasifika) and more resources for women; but they avoid any korero about individual discrimination.

At Budget-time, we have routinely heard the claim that there is not enough provision in the Budget – the government’s annual fiscal statement – for Māori. Perhaps less so from 2018 to 2022. But what does that mean? Resources for Māori? Or for ‘Maoris’?

The collectivist approach mandates that discrimination happens at the top-level of political society; at the governance level. Thus bureaucracies are created or extended – including governmental ‘entities’, and indeed ‘non-governmental’ entities (which nevertheless depend on government mandates) – which are openly discriminatory in their intent.

Discrimination in favour of an allegedly disadvantaged identity is justified through a process of leverage. Statistics are gathered from individuals and coded according to attributes – especially ethnicity, sex or gender, and health status; age and religion are less fashionable at present. The never unexpected results are then presented to justify forms of collective discrimination in the political process. Predictably, the incomes of ‘Maoris’ are lower on average than the incomes of ‘non-Maoris’, and female incomes are lower on average than male incomes.

The aim of this political process is not to remove these statistical differences. Rather it is to justify and extend identity bureaucracies – indeed to create advocacy ‘industries’ around such statistical differences – in such a way that there is a large suite of highly-paid jobs available to highlight these inequalities of averages. Such political theatre typically generates much heat and very little actionable ‘light’.

Essentially, what is supposed to happen is that much resource goes into these funded governance structures, and it is meant to trickle-down to the leverage group of disadvantaged people. The result in practice is that Left governments consume large slices of the national income, while achieving very little for the disadvantaged groups ostensibly being served. Trickle-down never worked. Instead the result is too much political superstructure and too little ballast. Government becomes top-heavy.

(These same principles apply to the under-provision – and particularly the lack of maintenance – of physical infrastructure as well. Hence all the water leaks from neglected pipes, and potholes across the roading network; pipes are ballast, and potholes are examples of missing ballast. Gold-plated schemes are created and discarded.)

Policies which benefit ‘Maoris’

The disconnect between the Treaty Māori and the leaders of the present government, is that the present leaders have an individualist mindset which means the parties talk past each other. Chrisopher Luxon genuinely wants to improve life for ‘Maoris’. Problems arise because his philosophical approach of targeting the needy – disproportionately ‘Maoris’ – has its own bureaucratic short-comings; and because his understandings of public finance are medieval (in the better sense of that word), and because he is a mercantilist at heart. Mr Luxon equates national progress with ‘making money’, with the accrual of financial wealth.

Nevertheless, and despite his philosophical blindspots, Luxon is correct to emphasise that expanding discriminatory superstructure is part of the problem, rather than a solution, to the statistical disadvantages used to justify that superstructure. Christoper Luxon and David Seymour clearly understand that effective direct support for the disadvantaged will disproportionately assist ‘Maoris’, because Maoris are disproportionately disadvantaged. Further, direct assistance also provides support for disadvantaged ‘non-Maoris’, who are no more nor less deserving. Indeed – and given the practical Ministry of Health definition of who is a ‘Maori’ – there are more disadvantaged ‘non-Maoris’ in Aotearoa New Zealand than disadvantaged ‘Maoris’ (because ‘Maoris’ represent perhaps twenty percent of that database of individual Aoteroans).

Collectivism and Individualism

As Stephen Joyce noted in his recent book, collectivism has an individual dimension and individualism necessarily has a collectivist dimension. Both sides of the present ‘debate’ need to expand their fields of vision, and address these blindspots.

‘Trickle-down’ policies have wasted much of this nation’s income. The Left version of trickle-down is no better than the Right version (which includes ‘tax-cuts for the rich’) which the Left like to lampoon. And the Right indulge in much more collectivism – albeit private sector collectivism – than they would ever want to admit. (Proper macro-accounting, incorporating public equity, helps to reveal the over-distribution of resources to elite private interests.)

It is clear that Christopher Luxon and David Seymour would have preferred not to have Winston Peters and Shane Jones as lead rhetoricians for their government. The irony is that, with one small adjustment to National’s tax policies, National would probably have got at least five percent more votes, and we would have a two-party rather than a three party coalition today. The adjustment was to have an income tax policy which only gave tax cuts to people earning less than $180,000 a year. National’s rhetoric of tax cuts to “low and middle income earners” was hollow, because everyone knew that high income earners were also getting the maximum tax cut (not counting a contrived higher amount only envisaged for a few thousand families). All National had to do was to bring the top tax threshold down to about $160,000 (refer my Christopher Luxon is tone deaf, 14 Nov 2023); but it did not do this, on account of its own lack of imagination and unwillingness to seek or take advice from outsiders.

Māori are important to Aotearoa New Zealand, not because of their ‘race’ but because they were Aotearoa’s first boat people. The Tiriti is not about ethnicity – though it is about indigeneity – and people who want to continue discussing its principles are not racist. Separatist agendas based on distinguishing individual Aotearoans on the basis of their race – their ethnicity, their ancestry – are racist. Collectivism averts the racist problem of individual discrimination, but creates another problem; the growth of an expanded high-earning elite class which leverages off rather than practically addresses socio-economic problems which are there for all to see.

Christopher Luxon operates by a mercantilist metaphor that sees Aotearoa New Zealand as a ship that must “go forward”. While that metaphor represents both shallow politics and shallow economics, the prime minister does at least understand that superstructure sinks ships.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

The ACT Party’s election promise of a referendum for Aotearoa New Zealand to redefine and enshrine the “principles” of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) is likely to dominate debate at this year’s Rātana and Waitangi Day events.

ACT’s coalition agreement with the National Party commits the government to supporting a Treaty Principles Bill for select committee consideration. The bill may not make it into law, but the idea is raising considerable alarm.

Leaked draft advice to Cabinet from the Ministry of Justice says the principles should be defined in legislation because “their importance requires there be certainty and clarity about their meaning”. The advice also says ACT’s proposal will:

change the nature of the principles from reflecting a relationship akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori to reflecting the relationship the Crown has with all citizens of New Zealand. This is not supported by either the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty.

Setting aside arguments that the notion of “partnership” diminishes self-determination, the 10,000 people attending a hui at Tūrangawaewae marae near Hamilton last weekend called by King Tūheitia were motivated by the prospect of the Treaty being diminished.

Do we need Treaty principles?
The Treaty principles were developed and elaborated by parliaments, courts and the Waitangi Tribunal over more than 50 years to guide policy implementation and mediate tensions between the Māori and English texts of the document.

The Māori text, which more than 500 rangatira (chiefs) signed, conferred the right to establish government on the British Crown. The English text conferred absolute sovereignty; 39 rangatira signed this text after having it explained in Māori, a language that has no concept of sovereignty as a political and legal authority to be given away.

Because the English text wasn’t widely signed, there is a view that it holds no influential standing, and that perhaps there isn’t a tension to mediate. Former chief justice Sian Elias has said: “It can’t be disputed that the Treaty is actually the Māori text”.

On Saturday, Tūheitia said: “There’s no principles, the Treaty is written, that’s it.”

This view is supported by arguments that the principles are reductionist and take attention away from the substance of Te Tiriti’s articles: the Crown may establish government; Māori may retain authority over their own affairs and enjoy citizenship of the state in ways that reflect equal tikanga (cultural values).

Author and Professor of Māori Studies at the University of Auckland, Margaret Mutu, who was in attendance at the recent hui-ā-iwi at Tūrangawaewae marae, says the government is required to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.https://t.co/zSusoi5RER pic.twitter.com/dMrxjtMRan

— 95bFM News (@95bFMNews) January 26, 2024

Democratic or undemocratic?
The ACT Party says this is undemocratic because it gives Māori a privileged voice in public decision making. Of the previous government, ACT has said:

Labour is trying to make New Zealand an unequal society on purpose. It believes there are two types of New Zealanders. Tangata Whenua, who are here by right, and Tangata Tiriti who are lucky to be here.

Liberal democracy was not the form of government Britain established in 1840. There’s even an argument that state government doesn’t concern Māori. The Crown exercises government only over “its people” – settlers and their descendants. Māori political authority is found in tino rangatiratanga and through shared decision making on matters of common interest.

Tino rangatiratanga has been defined as “the exercise of ultimate and paramount power and authority”. In practice, like all power, this is relative and relational to the power of others, and constrained by circumstances beyond human control.

But the power of others has to be fair and reasonable, and rangatiratanga requires freedom from arbitrary interference by the state. That way, authority and responsibility may be exercised, and independence upheld, in relation to Māori people’s own affairs and resources.

Assertions of rangatiratanga
Social integration — especially through intermarriage, economic interdependence and economies of scale — makes a rigid “them and us” binary an unlikely path to a better life for anybody.

However, rangatiratanga might be found in Tūheitia’s advice about the best form of protest against rewriting the Treaty principles to diminish the Treaty itself:

Be who we are, live our values, speak our reo (language), care for our mokopuna (children), our awa (rivers), our maunga (mountains), just be Māori. Māori all day, every day.

As the government introduces measures to reduce the use of te reo Māori in public life, repeal child care and protection legislation that promotes Māori leadership and responsibility, and repeal water management legislation that ensures Māori participation, Tūheitia’s words are all assertions of rangatiratanga.

Those government policies sit alongside the proposed Treaty Principles Bill to diminish Māori opportunities to be Māori in public life. For the ACT Party, this is necessary to protect democratic equality.

In effect, the proposed bill says that to be equal, Māori people can’t contribute to public decisions with reference to their own culture. As anthropologist Dr Anne Salmond has written, this means the state cannot admit there are “reasonable people who reason differently”.

Today thousands answered the Māori Kings call for unity by descending on Tūrangawaewae marae for a national hui to discuss Act’s proposal to redefine the principles of the treaty. Here’s David Seymour being grilled by @moanatribe on his questionable use of the word apartheid. pic.twitter.com/1E9pItTqLm

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) January 20, 2024

Liberal democracy and freedom
Equality through sameness is a false equality that liberal democracy is well-equipped to contest. Liberal democracy did not emerge to suppress difference.

It is concerned with much more than counting votes to see who wins on election day.

Liberal democracy is a political system intended to manage fair and reasonable differences in an orderly way. This means it doesn’t concentrate power in one place. It’s not a select few exercising sovereignty as the absolute and indivisible power to tell everybody else what to do.

This is because one of its ultimate purposes is to protect people’s freedom — the freedom to be Māori as much as the freedom to be Pakeha. If we want it to, democracy may help all and not just some of us to protect our freedom through our different ways of reasoning.

Freedom is protected by checks and balances on power. Parliament checks the powers of government. Citizens, including Māori citizens with equality of tikanga, check the powers of Parliament.

One of the ways this happens is through the distribution of power from the centre — to local governments, school boards and non-governmental providers of public services. This includes Māori health providers whose work was intended to be supported by the Māori Health Authority, which the government also intends to disestablish.

The rights of hapū (kinship groups), as the political communities whose representatives signed Te Tiriti, mean that rangatiratanga, too, checks and balances the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

Checking and balancing the powers of government requires the contribution of all and not just some citizens. When they do so in their own ways, and according to their own modes of reasoning, citizens contribute to democratic contest — not as a divisive activity, but to protect the common good from the accumulation of power for some people’s use in the domination of others.

Te Tiriti supports this democratic process.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan is adjunct professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and professor of political science, Charles Sturt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Last year Joelle Holland invested all of the money she had saved for a home deposit and put it into a baby product business called Hawaiiki Pēpi.

The sole focus of Hawaiiki Pēpi is to teach Māori children to be proud of their culture and language.

Hawaiiki Pēpi has already reached more than $100,000 in sales, but most importantly for its owner, it has delivered on its promise to encourage and normalise all things Māori.

“I don’t have any experience in business at all. But what I do have is a passion for my culture and the revitalisation of our language,” she says.

“This venture was a way for me to express that and show people how beautiful Māori can be.”

Holland (Tainui, Tūhoe, Ngāti Whātua) came up with the idea after giving birth to her children Ivy-āio, three, and Ryda Hawaiiki, one.

The online business that Holland manages and runs from her home, creates Māori-designed products such as blankets for babies.

Proud to be Māori
“When my eldest child was in my puku, I was trying to find baby products that showed that we were proud to be Māori. There weren’t any at the time. That’s how the idea of Hawaiiki Pēpi came about,” she says.

With the support of her partner Tayllis, Holland decided to take a risk and enter the competitive baby industry.

To prepare for her very first start up, Holland took business courses, conducted her own research and did 18 months of development before launching Hawaiiki Pēpi at the end of last year.

“The aim is to enhance identity, te reo Māori and whakapapa. We are hoping to wrap our pēpi in their culture from birth so they can gain a sense of who they are, creating strong, confident and unapologetically proud Māori.”

Holland grew up in Auckland and went to kohanga reo and kura kaupapa before spending her high school years boarding at St Joseph’s Māori Girls College in Napier.

She says that language is the key connection to one’s culture. It was through learning te reo Māori from birth that instilled in her a strong sense of cultural identity. It has motivated her in all of the important life decisions that she has made.

‘Struggled through teenage years’
“I struggled throughout my teenage years. I was trying to find my purpose. I was searching for who I was, where I came from and where I belonged.

“I realised that the strong connection I had to my tupuna and my people was through the language. Everything has reverted back to te reo Māori and it has always been an anchor in my life.”

Holland went to Masey University to qualify to teach Māori in schools, juggling study, with taking care of two children under three, and starting a new business.

This year, she completed her degree in the Bachelor of Teaching and Learning Kura Kaupapa Māori programme. The qualification has allowed Holland to add another powerful tool in her life that nurtures Māoritanga in the younger generation and contributes to the revitalisation of te reo Māori.

“I loved my studies. Every aspect of the degree was immersed in te reo Māori, from our essays, presentations to our speeches. Although I grew up speaking Māori, I realised there is still so much more to learn,” she says.

For now, Holland will be focusing on growing her business and raising her children before embarking on a career as a teacher.

“My end goal is to encourage all tamariki to be proud of their Māoritanga, encourage them to speak their language and stand tall.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The traditionally blue seat is currently held by Labour — the election of 2020 was the first time it had been won by the left since 1938 — but polls suggest that won’t last much longer.

Five candidates took part in the live-streamed debate at the Homestead Tavern organised by right-wing lobby group the Taxpayers’ Union.

With a partisan audience and The Daily Blog editor/publisher Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury and libertarian Damien Grant as MCs — political commentators from opposite ends of the political spectrum — it was a rollicking, raucous ride, sometimes rude but never dull.

For Prime it was a foray into hostile territory with the Labour MP all but drowned out by shouts and jeers.

She had little chance to defend her party’s record or set out her priorities above the din.

The loudest reaction came after mention of the C word — that’s covid, of course.

Covid response ‘saved lives’
Prime defended the government’s response, saying it was one of the best in the world and had saved lives, but acknowledged some in the room did not agree with her.

There were angry shouts from some in the near-capacity crowd anytime she used a word in te reo Māori, such as Aotearoa or puku [belly].

The other candidates received a warmer reception, with Matt King — the former Northland MP who quit National and set up DemocracyNZ in protest at the party’s covid policy — having the loudest supporters.

New Zealand First candidate Shane Jones continued his campaign theme of describing himself as the politician who delivered for Northland when he held the purse strings for the Provincial Growth Fund.

He also said it was time Northlanders broke their habit of electing lions, only to find they turned into lambs as soon as they took their place in Parliament.

Jones promised a “laser-like focus” on Northland’s infrastructure deficit, especially when it came to roads, rail and shipping.

‘Squeezed middle’
National candidate Grant McCallum, a Maungaturoto farmer who won the party’s selection process to replace King, also promised a laser-like focus — but in his case it would be on costs and the “squeezed middle”.

He said middle New Zealanders had been hard hit by rising prices and interest rates.

King was initially denied a place in the debate, raising the prospect of a protest outside the venue by his supporters, with the Taxpayers’ Union saying he did not meet the criteria.

Those criteria included being a sitting MP or polling at least 5 percent in the electorate.

King was told on Monday he could join the debate after all because the weekend’s Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll put his support in Northland at 5 percent, once undecided voters were excluded.

King promised to “fight back for farmers” against what he called a “climate change catastrophist narrative”.

ACT list MP Mark Cameron, meanwhile, just wanted less government, saying New Zealanders should be left alone to do what they did best.

Gun register dismissed
He was questioned by MC Martyn Bradbury about ACT’s plans to reverse a ban on high-calibre semi-automatic weapons, which Cameron did not address — but he did say bringing in a gun register had not worked overseas and would not work in New Zealand.

Between the serious politicking there was also plenty of humour.

When New Zealand First was accused of being less interested in real issues than in culture-war talking points such as the use of public toilets by transgender women, MC Damien Grant asked — with some trepidation — how Jones defined a woman.

“Matua Shane Jones has 19 mokopuna [grandchildren],” Jones replied.

“And he has his beautiful wife sitting right in front. Bro, that’s a woman.”

The last word went to Prime, who warned the crowd a change of government would lead to cuts in basic services.

It is not clear, however, if anyone heard her above the jeers.

‘Lot at stake in election’
“There is a lot at stake in this election, and I implore you all, to ask the questions and do the research,” Prime said.

Earlier in the evening, the organisers released the results of a Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll conducted in the Northland electorate the previous weekend.

The poll showed McCallum had 43 percent of the electorate vote, followed by Prime on 18 percent and Jones on 13 percent.

Both King and the Greens’ Reina Tuai Penney, who did not take part in the debate, had 4 percent support with Cameron trailing on 2 percent.

However, the poll had a relatively small sample size of 400 and a margin of error of almost 5 percent.

The proportion of respondents who had not made up their minds was 11 percent. If they were excluded, McCallum’s share of the vote jumped to 49 percent.

The poll showed broadly similar trends when it came to the party vote, although personal support for Jones (13 percent) was much higher than support for his party overall in Northland (3 percent).

Situation reversed
The situation was reversed for Cameron who had just 2 percent support as a candidate while his party, ACT, polled 12 percent.

Cameron has, however, been campaigning for the party vote only and suggesting his supporters give their electorate votes to McCallum.

Respondents were asked what they believed was the most important issue facing Northland.

Unsurprisingly, given the state of the region’s transport network, 36 percent opted for roads, followed by the cost of living on 15 percent, health on 14 percent and law and order on 8 percent.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Christina Dawa Kutsmana Thomas is on a mission to save her indigenous language from extinction. There are only eight people from her reservation in the state of Nevada who are fluent in Numu Yadooana — Northern Paiute, and they’re aged 70+.

“I feel like I’m under immense pressure. If I don’t do this, then who will? My people have become assimilated into modern life and we have to face the harsh reality that few people speak our language,” she says.

“It’s harder for my people to have a language renaissance because there are so many different tribes in America — 574. That’s 574 completely different languages, cultures, and histories.”

Thomas has spent the last eight months in New Zealand as a US Fullbright Scholar, attending kohanga reo, kura kaupapa, and classes at the University of Auckland, to observe and understand how te reo is being taught.

It’s been an eye-opening experience compared to how indigenous languages are treated in the US, she says.

“It’s hard for people to find time to learn our language, it’s a struggle to get people to attend community classes or seek it out on their own. We also don’t have resources, books, or a strong curriculum that ensures fluency for new language speakers.

“I feel grounded being in Aotearoa because I can see the support and the love for te reo and Māori culture, and it gives me the reassurance that I can do this.”

Growing up not speaking
Thomas grew up on the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation in Wadsworth, Nevada. Although it was a close-knit community, their Native language was discouraged from being spoken at home.

“My grandmother’s first language was Paiute, but she didn’t speak it to her own children, and discouraged my great-grandma to teach it to my mom. I then in turn grew up not speaking.

“At this time, Native people in the US were discouraged to speak their language and were trying to blend in with society in order to save their children from ridicule and racist remarks.”

Thomas was in her 20s and attending the University of Nevada in Reno when she came across an elder from her tribe who was teaching Paiute language classes at the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony.

“I grew up on a reservation and I knew my tribal affiliations but I did not know my history or the language. I started going to language classes and caught on quickly.”

Driving force
She was encouraged to take one-on-one lessons and found a new passion. Thomas has since been a teacher of the Paiute language in public high schools, a language consultant, and instructor for her tribe. She was the driving force behind the Paiute language being established as the first Indigenous language course at the University of Nevada.

For the past decade, Thomas has also been involved in Native arts and language regeneration projects. She was set to study to become an orthodontist, but her passion for language revitalisation and her culture made her change careers.

She enrolled to study to earn a PhD in Native American Studies at the University of California in the city of Davis.

She spent two weeks in New Zealand in 2018 as an undergraduate student conducting research on te reo, visiting language nests, primary, secondary, and tertiary schools.

In 2019, Christina returned to present her research at the University of Waikato for the Native American Indigenous Studies Association yearly international conference. She vowed then that she would be back for an extended period to focus and observe further about language regeneration.

Thomas returned to Aotearoa in February 2023 and will be flying home at the end of this month.

“New Zealand is known for its revitalisation of the te reo Māori. I had previously made connections here, so I knew that whānau would be able to help place me into schools and spaces for me to observe and learn.”

20 percent “native speakers”
Until World War II, most Māori spoke their te reo as their first language. But by the 1980s, fewer than 20 percent of Māori spoke the language well enough to be classed as native speakers.

In response, Māori leaders initiated Māori language recovery-programs such as the kōhanga reo movement, which started in 1982 and immersed infants in Māori from infancy to school age.

In 1989, official support was given for kura kaupapa Māori-primary and secondary Māori-language immersion schools.

The Māori Language Act 1987 was passed as a response to the Waitangi Tribunal finding that the Māori language was a taonga, a treasure or valued possession, under the Treaty of Waitangi and the Act gave te reo Māori official language status.

“I’d love to see everything that has been accomplished here in Aotearoa happen back home in my community,” Thomas says.

“My dream after I complete my PhD is to go home and open our very own kohanga reo.”

Thomas says what she has observed in New Zealand has been invaluable and will carry with her for the rest of her life.

“I’ve seen how teachers and kura are working towards Māori-based learning, by, with and for Māori.”

Trans-indigenous connection
“There’s a trans-indigenous connection. Our language is connected to our land and our ancestors by our songs, languages and stories. The beliefs we have as Indigenous people are connected and similar in so many ways.”

Throughout this journey, Thomas has brought her seven-year-old son, Jace Naki’e, along for the experience.

“I was really excited for him to be able to go to school here and have this experience. He loves kapa haka and learning about Māori culture. He’s also been able to share his culture in return.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

When New Zealand’s opposition National Party’s transport spokesperson, Simeon Brown, questioned the logic of bilingual traffic signs, he seemed to echo his leader Christopher Luxon’s earlier misgivings about the now prevalent use of te reo Māori in government departments.

Genuine concern or political signalling in an election year? After all, Luxon himself has expressed interest in learning te reo, and also encouraged its use when he was CEO of Air New Zealand.

He even sought to trademark “Kia Ora” as the title of the airline’s in-flight magazine.

And for his part, Brown has no problem with Māori place names on road signs. His concern is that important messaging about safety or directions should be readily understood. “Signs need to be clear,” he said.

“We all speak English, and they should be in English.” Adding more words, he believes, is simply confusing.

It’s important to take Brown at his word, then, with a new selection of proposed bilingual signs now out for public consultation. Given the National Party’s enthusiastic embrace of AI to generate pre-election advertising imagery, one obvious place to start is with ChatGPT, which tells us:

Bilingual traffic signs, which display information in two or more languages, are generally not considered a driver hazard. In fact, bilingual signage is often implemented to improve safety and ensure that drivers of different language backgrounds can understand and follow the traffic regulations.

ChatGPT also suggests that by providing information about speed limits, directions and warnings, bilingual traffic signs “accommodate diverse communities and promote road safety for all drivers”.

‘They should be in English’: National to ditch te reo Māori traffic signs https://t.co/7FGYyQDrPu

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) May 26, 2023

Safety and culture
With mounting concern over AI’s potential existential threat to human survival, however, it’s probably best we don’t take the bot’s word for it.

Fortunately, government transport agency Waka Kotahi has already examined the use of bilingual traffic signs in 19 countries across the Americas, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. It’s 2021 report states:

The use of bilingual traffic signage is common around the world and considered “standard” in the European Union. Culture, safety and commerce appear to be the primary impetuses behind bilingual signage.

Given Brown’s explicit preference for the use of English, it’s instructive that in the UK itself, the Welsh, Ulster Scots and Scots Gaelic languages appear alongside English on road signs in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

More to the point, on the basis of the evidence it reviewed, Waka Kotahi concluded that — providing other important design considerations are attended to — bilingual traffic signs can both improve safety and respond to cultural aspirations:

In regions of Aotearoa New Zealand where people of Māori descent are over-represented in vehicle crash statistics, or where they represent a large proportion of the local population, bilingual traffic signage may impart benefits in terms of reducing harm on our road network.

‘One people’
Politically, however, the problem with a debate over bilingual road signs is that it quickly becomes another skirmish in the culture wars — echoing the common catchcry of those opposed to greater biculturalism in Aotearoa New Zealand: “We are one people”.

It’s a loaded phrase, originally attributed to the Crown’s representative Lieutenant Governor William Hobson, who supposedly said “he iwi tahi tātou” (we are one people) at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

Whether or not he said any such thing is up for debate. William Colenso, who was at Waitangi on the day and who reported Hobson’s words, thought he had.

But Colenso’s account was published 50 years after the events in question (and just nine years before he died aged 89).

Either way, the assertion has since come to be favoured by those to whom the notion of cultural homogeneity appeals. It’s a common response to the increasing public visibility of te ao Māori (the Māori world).

But being “one people” means other things become singular too: one law, one science, one language, one system. In other words, a non-Māori system, the one many of us take for granted as simply the way things are.

Any suggestion that system might incorporate or coexist with aspects of other systems — indeed might benefit from them — tends to come up against the kind of resistance we see to such things as bilingual road signs.

Fretful sleepers
The discomfort many New Zealanders still feel with the use of te reo Māori in public settings brings to mind Bill Pearson’s famous 1952 essay, Fretful Sleepers.

In it, Pearson reflects on the anxiety that can seep unbidden into the lives of those who would like to live in a “wishfully untroubled world”, but who nonetheless sense things are not quite right out here on the margins of the globe.

Pearson lived in a very different New Zealand. But he had his finger on the same fear and defensiveness that can cause people to fret about the little things (like bilingual signs) when there are so many more consequential things to disrupt our sleep.

Anyway, Simeon Brown and his fellow fretful sleepers appear to be on the wrong side of history. Evidence suggests most New Zealanders would like to see more te reo Māori in their lives, not less.

Two-thirds would like te reo taught as a core subject in primary schools, and 56 percent think “signage should be in both te reo Māori and English”.

If the experience in other parts of the world is anything to go by, bilingual signage will be just another milestone on the road a majority seem happy to be on.

Dr Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Māori Party co-leader says the opposition National Party should go back to school if it thinks including te reo Māori on road signs is confusing.

In a transport meeting yesterday in Bay of Plenty, National’s spokesperson Simeon Brown said introducing the language to road signs would make them “more confusing” and they “should all be English”.

On Monday, Waka Kotahi said its He Tohu Huarahi Māori Bilingual Traffic Signs programme was going out for public consultation.

If successful, the programme would include te reo Māori in motorway and expressway signs, destination signs, public and active transport signs, walking and cycling signs, general advisory and warning signs.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said having the language included on road signs will help those in the process of learning te reo.

“This is an environment where there’s more non-Māori learning reo than we ever had in the history of Aotearoa. It’s important that we embrace our nation hood, including our indigenous people and our language.”

“We spent a long time trying to make sure we don’t lose our language, so having our culture in our roads is not just about helping those who are fluent Māori speakers, but so those who are in our education system learning reo can see it reflected around our environment.”

‘Make an effort’
She said Brown should go back to school if he thought te reo Māori on road signs was confusing.

“It’s never too hard to understand the official languages of Aotearoa. Whether it will be making an effort to understand te reo or sign language, for example.

“These are all a critical part of our nation and if he [Simeon Brown] needs to go back to school or take some time off Parliament to be able to understand our language so be it.”

There had been Māori traffic signs, Māori names, in this nation for a very long time, Ngarewa-Packer said.

“I’m not so sure why he [Simeon Brown] is so confused now.”

The Te Pāti Māori co-leader said Brown’s comments were separatist.

“I think it’s a real ignorant alarmist way to be politicking.”

“Twenty percent of our population is Māori. If we see a large [political] party basically trying to ignore 20 percent of this population, then can we expect them to do that to the rest of our multiculture, diversity and languages that we see coming forward in Aotearoa?”

She said most New Zealanders would enjoy seeing multilingual road signs.

“I think we are a mature and sophisticated country and generally, most of us, actually really enjoy not only seeing our indigenous language but also other languages.

“[Not having bilingual signs] It’s an attempt to take us backwards that I don’t think many are going to tolerate.”

‘They should be filling pot holes’ – National
National’s transport spokesman Simeon Brown said Waka Kotahi should be filling pot holes instead of looking into including te reo Māori in road signage around the country.

“NZTA should be focusing primarally in fixing the pot holes on our roads and they shouldn’t be distracted by changing signage up and down our country.”

“Most New Zealanders want to see our roads fixed, it’s their number one priority.”

Brown said the National Party was open to bilingual information, but only when it came to place names signage.

“When it comes to critically important safety information the signage needs to be clear and understandable for people in our road, most of whom who speak English.”

“It’s important to keep the balance right between place names, which we are very open for bilingual signage, and critical safety signs where is really important people understand what the sign is saying,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An increased appetite to learn te reo Māori among members and staff from different parts of the Parliamentary system means the work of Parliament’s Māori Language Service is in demand more than ever.

Compared to several years ago there’s now also significantly more acknowledgement of and referral to Māori customs and protocols at Parliament. This is part of the reason why Nga Ratonga Reo Māori recently changed its name to Nga Ratonga Ao Māori, opening up the service’s scope to more than just the language.

“We’re asked for advice on a lot of things — very often — a few a day, several a week, from all parts of the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk, and they could be reo related, marae related, tikanga related, etc,” says Maika Te Amo, the man who heads the five-person unit.

“I still see my main role as supporting the House with Māori language services, primarily simultaneous interpretation of all sittings of the House and also sittings of the Māori Affairs Select Committee, at every sitting, but also any other committee that requests simultaneous interpretation.

“The other thing is translation — and that can be anything from communications through the Parliamentary Engagement team that go out on the website or the social media channels. A heavy part of our load comes from the Māori Affairs Select Committee — all of their reports are bilingual, so we translate all of those as well.”

From 1868 until 1920 Parliament had interpreters in the House. Then, for most of last century, Parliament didn’t even employ an interpreter to support MPs who spoke in Māori.

It wasn’t until this century, with the reintroduction of interpreters and Māori language services, that te reo began to flow significantly in the chamber again.

People who follow the action in the debating chamber these days will be familiar with numerous MPs fluently using te reo in speeches. If you’re watching the debate on Parliament TV you may see other MPs listening-in via an earpiece.

That is made possible because of simultaneous interpretation by Te Amo and his colleagues.

It is not only Māori MPs who use te reo in the chamber. Many MPs regularly pepper their speeches with the language, or use Māori for all their formal phrasings (e.g. asking for a supplementary question during Question Time).

Furthermore, Te Amo says there is a lot of interest in using the language among staff of the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk.

There’s also ample evidence that Māori language and practices are being used throughout the Parliamentary system. In the annual reviews where government agencies front before various select committees to give a report on how their year has gone, their representatives often introduce themselves and give closing statements in te reo.

“There is an enormous hunger among our colleagues for the language and everything associated with the language, tikanga and traditional practices, traditional perspectives, metaphors, that kind of thing, and that is very encouraging,” says Te Amo.

“We’re a small team, so we will continue to do our best to support our colleagues with various different learning opportunities.”

Pacific challenge
The struggle to preserve Indigenous language and promote its use in Parliament is an acute challenge in the Pacific Islands.

This much was clear when Maika Te Amo gave the keynote speech at the Australasian and Pacific Hansard Editors Association conference at New Zealand’s Parliament in January. His speech left an impression on other delegates such as Papaterai William, the subeditor of debates in the Cook Islands.

“One statement I enjoyed when Maika was talking says ‘if the language is no more, the Māori people are no more’. Now I can actually rephrase that our Cook Islands people ‘if the language is no more, the Cook Islands Māori are no more’,” he said.

“Nowadays people are speaking English, and not many people are speaking our language, which is the Cook Islands Māori. We’re talking about a language that will fade in the future.

“That is one thing that we are wanting to retain to make sure that it is maintained properly, that it is taught properly, because language revitalisation I believe is important going forward for our Hansard department.”

William tipped his hat to Tonga where in Parliament, unlike in the Cook Islands, proceedings are captured strictly in the Indigenous language, which he said helped keep the language alive for future generations.

Tonga’s Hansard editor, Susanna Heti Lui, was also at the conference, where she explained that the Kingdom’s Parliament felt the need to preserve and revive their Tongan language.

“Our language is the official language that is used in Parliament. That is compared to the government, it uses English as the official language used in the workplace,” she said.

Language must be active to stay alive
Te Amo points out that informal settings at Parliament are also opportunities for growth in the use of te reo, “where people can just bring whatever reo they’ve got and just speak that”.

“What I also hear a lot from members is that they’d also like to increase their knowledge and fluency in the language, and it’s very difficult to find ways of doing that which fit with their schedules which are absolutely hectic of course.

“One thing I’d love to see is members in particular being more comfortable with using their reo in the cafeteria or when you’re breezing through the halls,” he said.

“The only other things really is I wish our team of five was a team of 50 so we could offer to our colleagues everything that they’re asking for, as opposed to having to prioritise.”

RNZ’s The House — parliamentary legislation, issues and insights — is made with funding from Parliament.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

On the 35th anniversary of te reo Māori becoming an official language, the Māori Language Commission is warning more work is needed to ensure its survival.

In 1987, a bill introduced by Koro Wetere was passed after years of campaigning — including the Māori language petition, the land marches and Ngā Tamatoa movements.

Until the late 1960s, the language was officially discouraged and tamariki faced corporal punishment for speaking their native tongue.

Broadcaster and educator Dr Haare Williams — on an RNZ panel about the language bill broadcast in 1986 — said it was crucial for the country that it survive.

“We should never underestimate the emotive power of the Māori language. The danger of loss is irretrievable and like the plague the danger is contagious,” Williams said.

“Should we lose the Māori language in this country, both Māori and Pākehā will be the losers and both will be guilty of allowing it to die.”

Thirty-five years later, Te Taura Whiri i te reo Māori chief executive Ngahiwi Apanui is celebrating where te reo is at but also taking stock.

Demand for courses high
While demand for courses is through the roof and about 30 percent of people today consider themselves proficient in te reo Māori, it would still be classified as endangered.

Apanui said the goal of one million reo speakers by 2040 was still a long way off.

“Only 3000 teachers today to satisfy demand for kids going into Māori medium and for English medium, they need 30,000 teachers. So that kind of gives you an idea of the problem or the issue that we face,” Apanui said.

“The good thing is there’s unprecedented demand for te reo but the issue is what is the production line.”

That was evident in the disparities faced by the very language nests that are meant to help the reo flourish.

Kohanga and Kura Kaupapa were set up in the same wave in which Parliament acknowledged te reo Māori. But since their inception they have had to fight for funding, resources and acknowledgment.

Te Rūnanganui of Ngā Kura Kaupapa chair Rawiri Wright said if they were better resourced, successive governments would be closer to their own reo goals.

“There were more than 800 kōhanga reo, there are now 480 there or thereabouts and if Kura Kaupapa Māori had been properly and equitably resourced … we currently have 6500 students in kaupapa Māori but there should be closer to 10,000.”

inequities over the language
Wright said teaching the language runs deeper than just understanding what was being spoken.

“It’s not just about reo Māori, it’s about mātauranga Māori, tikangi Māori, Māori worldview, Māori face, belief, essence and just being Māori,” he said.

Ngahiwi Apanui said there were still inequities in accessing the language, and mainstream schools were important to addressing that.

“Not all Māori are in Māori medium … and often it’s socioeconomically related, if you look through South Auckland, for instance, you won’t find as many children coming out of families speaking te reo Māori as you would if you looked at the middle working class sector of society in Wellington,” Apanui said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Te Pāti Māori has handed over its petition — with 70,000 signatures — calling for the country to officially be named Aotearoa.

It is on our passports, on our money, and in our national anthem. But Aotearoa is not our official name, yet.

The petition was delivered to Parliament today. It calls to change the country’s official name to Aotearoa, and begin a process to restore te reo Māori names for all towns, cities, and places by 2026.

“Whether you’re for or against, the thing is everyone knows that Aotearoa is a legitimate name given to this country by Kupe — not by Governor Grey or any written book, this is well before any of those things,” Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said.

Te Reo fluency among Māori dropped from 90 percent in 1910 to 26 percent in 1950.

Today, just 20 percent of the Māori population speak it. That’s three percent of the whole country.

Waititi said the only way to restore the language was to make it visible in as many places as possible.

‘Pebble being dropped in the water’
“This is the pebble being dropped in the water, the initial pebble hitting the water. And what it’ll do, from now for many years to come, is those ripples will continue to get bigger and bigger.”

The petition now goes to a select committee, which will decide what to do next. Whether that was a bill or even a public referendum, it had already succeeded, Waititi said.

“It’s starting the dialogue, it’s building awareness. It has started a wananga across the country.”

National leader Christopher Luxon said changing the name was a constitutional issue.

“I think those are decisions for the New Zealand people, if there’s widespread support it should go to referendum and it should be a decision that they get to make. It’s not something the government makes,” he said.

But just last week Luxon posted a tribute in te reo Māori to kaumatua Joe Hawke, resulting in a tirade of anti-Māori remarks from National supporters.

Waititi brushed off any backlash the petition, and by extension he, received.

“If they’re getting their undies in a twist, that’s their undies, not my undies,” he said.

Time for a discussion
Government ministers said it was time for a discussion over changing the name, but were not actually committing to one.

“These things evolve over time, but it’s up to every New Zealander to be part of the debate,” Andrew Little said.

“I’m mindful that representatives from Ngāi Tahu have pointed out that Aotearoa tends to focus on the North Island, but that’s a debate that can rightly happen,” David Clark said.

Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall admitted she had not given it any thought.

“But I’m very comfortable having the country referred to as Aotearoa-New Zealand,” she said.

Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson said it was not something the Labour caucus had discussed, while Michael Wood called for open-mindedness.

“I think any question like that needs to be worked through really carefully. It’s the name of our country, the identity of our country,” he said.

Labour’s Māori caucus divided
Labour’s Māori caucus was somewhat divided

“I think we should have a good conversation about it. I’ve personally got no problems with us using Aotearoa but it’s a question for the whole country,” Kelvin Davis said.

Minister of Māori Development Willie Jackson supported the use of Aotearoa, but said he had recently been travelling around the country, speaking to Māori communities, and changing the country’s name never came up.

“We have other kaupapa more important right now,” he said.

Peeni Henare believed the country was ready.

“I’m encouraging one and all to have a very mature debate over what I think is a pretty cool kaupapa,” he said.

Artist Hohepa Thompson, also known as Hori, backed the petition.

Hori’s Pledge response
Hori’s Pledge is a response to billboards popping up around the country saying “New Zealand, not Aotearoa”, funded by lobby group Hobson’s Pledge.

Thompson had been driving across Te Ika a Maui, with his own billboard in tow, to call for change.

He believed a hyphenated ‘Aotearoa-New Zealand’ would not go far enough.

“Māori have taken the backseat for many, many times. So when it comes to Aotearoa-New Zealand, let’s have this. Aotearoa, boom.”

The most positive conversations on his trip came from people who did not even know Pākehā history, he said.

“The only renaming that happened here was from that side. So we’re not trying to create ‘change’, were just re-instating what was already here.”

He pointed out a similar subject that took place recently.

Three years ago, some said a national holiday for Matariki would never happen. Later this month, it will be officially celebrated for the first time.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Whether he knows it or probably not, the year Joe Bennett arrived in Aotearoa from England was a milestone year for te reo Māori. After years of petitions, protest marches and activism from New Zealanders of all ethnicities as well as a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry: te reo Māori became an official language in its own land on 1 August 1987.

This was the same day our organisation opened its doors for the first time and in a few months, we will celebrate our 35th birthday.

Just getting to 1987 was not an easy road. It was a battle that had already been fought in our families, towns, schools, workplaces, churches and yes, newsrooms for decades.

In 1972, the Māori Language Petition carried more than 33,000 signatures to the steps of Parliament calling for te reo to be taught in our schools and protected.

Organised by the extraordinary Hana Te Hemara from her kitchen table, well before the internet, this was flax roots activism at its finest.

Hana mobilised hundreds of Māori university students who along with language activists and church members from all denominations, knocked on thousands of front doors across Aotearoa.

As the petition was circulated more easily in urban areas with large populations, the majority of those who signed the petition were not Māori. Most of those Kiwis (who would all be well into their 70s by now) didn’t think that te reo was ‘Māori nonsense’.

Identity as New Zealanders
We know from our own Colmar Kantar public opinion polling that more than eight in 10 of us see the Māori language as part of our identity as New Zealanders. Today in 2022, most Kiwis don’t see te reo as Māori nonsense.

Racist, official policies that banned and made te reo socially unacceptable saw generations of Māori families stop speaking te reo. It takes one generation to lose a language and three to get it back: the countdown is on.

Story time: I was alerted today to an opinion piece in @otd I have thought hard about sharing it but I think it’s important to show the views of people who have significant platforms but also the support they receive. Have a read… pic.twitter.com/hXyUiv7DDK

— Māni Dunlop (@manidunlop) April 27, 2022

Last year and the year before more than 1 million New Zealanders joined us to celebrate te reo at the same time, that’s more than one in five of us. We don’t see te reo as Māori nonsense.

Putting personal opinions aside, the elephant in the room of Bennett’s article is an important and rather large one: te reo Māori is endangered in the land it comes from.

It is a language that is native to this country and like an endangered bird, its future depends on what we do.

And from the behaviour of New Zealanders over the past half-century: it does not seem that we are willing to give up te reo without a fight.

Bennett says that languages that are not useful will wither away because they exist for one reason only: to communicate meaning.

Telling the stories of humanity
Languages are much more than this. They tell the stories of humanity, they are what make us human.

Te reo serves as both an anchor to our past and a compass to the future. It connects Māori New Zealanders to ancestors, culture and identity.

It grounds all New Zealanders by giving us a sense of belonging to this place we call home. It guides us all as we prepare for the Aotearoa of tomorrow.

Our team won the world’s most prestigious public relations award last year for our Māori Language Week work because they valued language diversity much as biodiversity.

The global judging panel told us in the ceremony held in London that we won because our work is critical to the future. Language diversity is the diversity of humanity and if we do nothing, half of our world’s languages will disappear by the end of this century.

And with them, our unique identities, those very things that make us who we are will disappear with them. It may be nonsense to a few but it’s nonsense more than 1 million of us will continue to fight for.

A note from RNZ: RNZ feels a deep responsibility, as required by our Charter and Act of Parliament, to reflect and support the use of Te Reo Māori in our programming and content. We will continue to do so. This article was originally published on Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori — Māori Language Commission — in response to Joe Bennett’s Otago Daily Times article “Evolving language scoffs at moral or political aims” on 21 April 2022 and is  republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz