A Real Revolution?

Secret Revolutionary? “I think the general public is not aware that we are going through huge revolutionary changes in the country and, in fact, we have taken that such a long way, there is no going back.”  –  Dame Claudia Orange

SUPPOSE THEY MADE A REVOLUTION, and nobody noticed. Suppose the “Cabinet Office” ordered the nation’s public servants to implement an unmandated revolutionary transformation of New Zealand, and they complied. Suppose one of the leading authorities on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Dame Claudia Orange, confirmed that this revolution was, in fact, a done deal.

This is what Dame Claudia told the NZ Herald’s Audrey Young:

I think the general public is not aware that we are going through huge revolutionary changes in the country and, in fact, we have taken that such a long way, there is no going back.

Now, forgive me, but my understanding of revolutionary change is that it does not, and cannot, take place without the “general public” being aware. The active participation of the people in replacing a regime that has, in their eyes, lost all political legitimacy, is pretty much the definition of a revolution. The idea that not only could such a profound upheaval have taken place, but also gone past the point of no return, without the people either noticing it, or sanctioning it, is, quite simply, absurd.

So what should we call a programme initiated by the “Cabinet Office” (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet?) with the ultimate intention of transforming the nation’s constitutional arrangements in such a way that the “consent of the governed” need not be confirmed by democratic means?

Given that New Zealanders have lived through such a transformation before, when the programme of ruthless economic “reforms” known as “Rogernomics” was unleashed upon them without warning, and without an electoral mandate, between 1984 and 1987, then it seems only fitting that this latest attempt to impose transformational change from the top down be described in the same manner. What New Zealanders have been experiencing since 2019 is a “bureaucratic coup d’état”.

Indeed, the parallels between 1984 and the present are uncanny. In 1984, the incoming Labour Government, led by David Lange, was presented by its Treasury advisors with “Economic Management” – essentially a blueprint for Finance Minister Roger Douglas’s radical transformation of the New Zealand economy.

Prior to the 2020 general election, a similar transformational blueprint, “He Puapua” was handed to the Minister for Māori Development, Nanaia Mahuta. Commissioned by the Minister in 2019 to envision a pathway to the full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “He Puapua” dovetailed neatly with the “Cabinet Office’s” instructions regarding Te Tiriti.

The parallels do not stop there. Three years after “Economic Management”, the Treasury presented the re-elected Labour Government with “Government Management” – a detailed blueprint for adapting the instruments of state administration to the needs of the new “free market”.

Three years after “He Puapua”, the re-elected Labour Government has been presented with two reports, “Ki te whaiao, ki te ao Mārama” and “Maranga Mai” both commissioned by the Human Rights Commission and reflecting the advice of some of the most radical Māori nationalists in New Zealand. Among a host of revolutionary recommendations, the “Maranga Mai” report concludes:

Reform of central and local government systems is also needed to reduce and eliminate institutional racism which cause inequities and inequalities for Māori in outcomes. This reform should uphold and align these systems with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, by following the foundational work and recommendations set out in Matike Mai Aotearoa and He Puapua reports.

Were the recommendations of “Matike Mai Aotearoa” and “He Puapua” to be followed, the manner in which New Zealanders are governed, and the rights and privileges they are heir to, would indeed be transformed – out of all recognition.

Race Relations Commissioner, Meng Foon, has responded to the reports by committing himself to the long-term goal of “Eliminat[ing] racism in Aotearoa in all forms, in all organisations whether it’s government, non-government organisations, businesses, amongst our communities.”

New Zealanders anxious to learn how this elimination might be accomplished – especially given the Human Rights Commission’s acceptance that racism and white supremacy are baked-in to New Zealand society – should probably study the “re-education” centres established by the Chinese Government in Xinxiang to eliminate radical Islamist ideology from all mosques, schools, organisations, businesses and communities of the Uighur people.

It is difficult to believe that Labour could be contemplating a bureaucratic coup-d’état even more destructive than Rogernomics. If they are, then – this time – they will provoke a real revolution.

This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 10 February 2023.

This Meddlesome Human Rights Commissioner.

Who Asked You? Hunt’s visit to the protesters illegal encampment sent a message to the rest of New Zealand that was as unfortunate as it was untrue. Having spurned the social obligation to be vaccinated in the midst of a global pandemic, the protesters’ demands: that the defences  erected by the government to protect their fellow citizens from the consequences of their anti-social behaviour must be abandoned; “should be acknowledged and heard”.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST SURPRISES of the recent anti-vaccination protest/riot was the visit of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. The presence of Paul Hunt, in the midst of an unlawful protest, condemned by the Speaker of the House, and which the leaders of all parties had agreed to keep at arm’s length, was jarring – to say the least.

I found myself reaching back into medieval history for a precedent. Hunt, it seemed to me, was venturing into the same dangerous territory as Thomas Becket (1118-1170) the Archbishop of Canterbury who challenged the prerogatives of King Henry II – and paid for it with his life.

It’s possible Hunt has already apprehended how badly his decision to go among the protesters has been received in certain quarters. Why else would he have risked compounding his political sins by penning an opinion piece for Stuff? Clearly, he felt he owed someone (the Prime Minister perhaps?) an explanation.

Given that Hunt’s visit was an astonishing slap in the face to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who had made it crystal clear what she thought of the reactionary gathering of law-breakers and malcontents on Parliament’s front lawn, his explanation would need to be a very good one.

It isn’t.

While acknowledging that the protesters have been “moved on” from their illegal encampment on Parliament Grounds (without, it must be said, a word of condemnation of their appalling conduct towards the Police as that process unfolded) Hunt still felt obligated to give heed to “the messages they conveyed”. In particular, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner believed that “those adversely affected by the vaccination mandates and passes (or “certificates”) should be acknowledged and heard.”

“Adversely affected”. Hunt seems to be suggesting that the vaccination refuseniks had been “adversely affected” in the same way that a farmer is “adversely affected” by a severe snowstorm at the start of the lambing season. But their failure to get vaccinated – and, hence, to fall foul of the vaccination mandates – was not an Act of God, it was an act of their own free will. An act, moreover, which came with well-advertised consequences, of which they were entirely conscious. These anti-vaxxers have not “lost” their jobs. Rather than participate in the nationwide effort to defeat Covid-19, they have given them up.

As Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Hunt knows that our Bill of Rights Act guarantees that citizens cannot be forced to undergo medical treatment against their will. But, he should also know that by exercising this human right those same citizens, having declined to be vaccinated against it, are in no way entitled to put other citizens at risk of contracting a potentially lethal virus.

Hunt’s visit to the protesters illegal encampment sent a message to the rest of New Zealand that was as unfortunate as it was untrue. Having spurned the social obligation to be vaccinated in the midst of a global pandemic, the protesters’ demands: that the defences (vaccination mandates, vaccination certificates) erected by the government to protect their fellow citizens from the consequences of their anti-social behaviour must be abandoned; “should be acknowledged and heard”.

What alternative construction can we put on Hunt’s behaviour, other than human rights in New Zealand are now whatever individuals say they are, and that no acknowledgement of the rights of other citizens is any longer required? What can it mean except that the “public welfare, peace and tranquillity of New Zealand” (to quote the old Parliamentary prayer) now counts for nothing. Certainly, there was bugger-all “peace and tranquillity” on display as the fires raged and the paving stones flew on Wednesday, 2 March 2022.

Hunt, however, is not finished: “When Covid-19 arrived in Aotearoa, the commission devised a human rights and Te Tiriti test to check whether the Government’s initiatives are striking fair and reasonable balances between competing rights.”

Talk about your Thomas Becket moment! This unelected public servant has arrogated unto himself the right to judge the actions of a democratically elected government. In the midst of a global pandemic, he, Paul Hunt, will “check” the state’s actions to determine whether they are “fair and reasonable”. Not only that, but he will deliberately flout the Prime Minister’s rāhui on meeting with representatives of an unlawful protest.

How tempted Jacinda Ardern must be to cry: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest!”

This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 11 March 2022.