The Tide is Turning

“Democratic government can accommodate Maori political aspiration in many ways. It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Maori people. It can delegate authority, and allow the exercise of degrees of Maori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both.”
– Former Labour Prime Minister David Lange

What has been described by journalist Graham Adams as a “covert 20-year plan to establish Maori sovereignty” is now being rolled out by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern under the guise of a blueprint for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Government’s He Puapua report provides a roadmap for tribal authorities to take control of the country by 2040 – the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is being implemented by stealth.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, journalist and author Mike Butler has examined He Puapua and outlines their ‘grand plan’ for separatist control through ‘co-governance’:

“There will be a sphere of solely Crown governance that includes Parliament, the Beehive, and the civil service, as currently exists, to govern the 4.5 million non-Maori citizens of New Zealand.

“There will be a sphere of solely Maori governance, with the same level of authority and responsibility, that may include a second Parliament, Beehive, and civil service, to govern the half million citizens of Maori descent.

“The two spheres will overlap creating a ‘co-governance sphere’ in which the Crown and Maori share governance in ‘matters of mutual concern’.”

Far-fetched as it sounds, we can see how it is playing out in the health reforms announced by the Minister of Health Andrew Little last month.

He has proposed a centralised health agency, Health NZ, to replace the country’s existing 20 District Health Boards – clearly the Crown governance sphere.

A completely separate Maori Health Authority has been proposed to fund and deliver health services to Maori – the Maori governance sphere.

And since there will be some overlap, the separatist Maori Health Authority will have the right of veto over the whole health system – that is a veto power over $20 billion worth of Government health spending in the co-governance sphere.

But these reform proposals raise some important questions.

Minister Little claims his plan for centralisation will create “our first truly national public health service”. But it will dismantle the reforms introduced by Helen Clark’s Labour Government 20 years ago that established District Health Boards, which then Health Minister Annette King claimed would “restore community involvement in, and ownership of, health at a local level” and “return to a genuine public health service in this country”.

So, which is it? They can’t both be right: will a true public health service be created through Minister Little’s centralisation, or was it created by Minister King through the strong community involvement and empowered local ownership of our devolved District Health Boards?

Or is it the case that the only way to make separatism work in health, is for the Crown sphere to have a single centralised agency, rather than 20 community-based District Health Boards. Is this the real reason community-based health boards are being scrapped?

And what compelling rationale justifies the massive upheaval of New Zealand’s health system and the creation of a separatist Maori health service?

The Associate Minister of Health Peeni Henare outlined the reasoning at the Press Conference announcing the reforms: “We talk a lot about being a transformational Government. Some imagine this statement means big infrastructure builds, massive policy commitments all leading up to a single grand reveal. But this is what I see as transformation. Something quite simply and yet so very complex. Maori feeling comfortable and able to go to the doctor when they get sick. That – that would change everything for our people.”

Our whole health system is apparently going to be turned on its head so Maori can feel more comfortable going to the doctor. Well, I have news for Mr Henare: Maori aren’t the only ones who don’t like going to the doctor!

Not only is this no justification for such a radical upheaval of the health system, but the evidence shows that it’s not the colour of one’s skin that creates health disparity, but factors such as lifestyle – whether someone smokes, drinks, take drugs, exercises, eats a healthy diet; whether health care is accessed in a timely fashion with prescribed treatment plans followed; and the home environment including the influence of family, socio-economic background, education, and employment status.

This is why health care should always be based on need, never on race.

Minister Henare explained that improving ‘equity’ will be a key objective for the new Maori Health Authority, as will autonomy: “It will be able to directly commission services where needed. Maori will have a clear voice in decision-making through the evolved iwi/Maori partnership boards that will approve priorities and service plans for localities.”

So while the new Maori health model will give communities “a clear voice in decision-making” so services can be tailored to meet local needs, the new centralised service planned for the rest of New Zealand will take local community involvement in decision-making away.

Political commentator Chris Trotter has serious concerns about the Government’s separatist health reforms: “The Maori Health Authority will not, itself, be the provider of Maori health services. These will be ‘commissioned’ by the Authority: presumably from private Maori contractors. We may even see the rise of Maori health entrepreneurs: individuals keen to profit from the needs identified by the MHA’s ‘monitors’.

But he makes the point, “If Little had announced that Health New Zealand would be commissioning private sector providers to supply the health needs of New Zealanders, then the Left would have condemned him roundly. Labour would stand accused of privatising the public health system. People would demand to know how the citizen’s right to publicly provided health care can possibly be reconciled with the pursuit of private profit. That no such outcry has greeted the Government’s decision to hand over the health care of New Zealand’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens to private entities – some of them quite likely profit-seeking businesses – is telling…

“Labour might like to answer how it could possibly be in the MHA’s interest to report anything other than a strong improvement in Maori health outcomes. Were it ever to report that in spite of its best efforts the general health of Maori New Zealanders, as compared to Pakeha, continues to decline, then one of the key rationales for its establishment would be seriously compromised. Is it reasonable to ask the MHA to be a judge in its own cause?”

The privatisation of social services to tribal corporations is exactly what they have been calling for. With the Maori economy now worth upwards of $70 billion, iwi leaders have long recognised that lucrative money-making opportunities exist in Maori disadvantage.

Cynics would say this is why tribal leaders have largely refused to use their growing wealth – built on the back of taxpayer-funded Treaty settlements – to help those who are struggling.

The separatists calling for a Maori Health Authority, do not want State involvement. But as Chris Trotter warns, the prospect of tribal corporations in “pursuit of private profit” supplying taxpayer-funded health services to family members without State oversight, raises important questions of accountability.

Surely, the deal is this: if the State pays, then the State must have oversight and control.

Since the State will be providing the funding, then the Maori Health Authority must be fully accountable to the State for its performance and spending.

This same argument should apply to the calls for separatist control of the Government’s child protection agency. Driven by radical activists, a vindictive campaign has been run to undermine Oranga Tamariki. As a result, the Minister for Children has established a Maori advisory board to consider the devolution of the protection of abused children to private tribal agencies.

But no Government can wash its hands of vulnerable children – nor can it turn its back on the need for State oversight and control. 

Already Lady Tureiti Moxon, tipped as a potential leader for a separatist Maori child protection service, is calling for abusive parents to be compensated for having their children removed: “I think the Crown should be looking at an apology and certainly should be looking at compensating a lot of these whanau, and returning children back to their parents.”

Does this engender confidence that an iwi-led autonomous child protection agency would have the best interests of the child at heart?

While many concerns are now being raised about He Puapua, what has not been questioned to date is the validity of two key concepts that underpin the separatist agenda – the first is the claim that the Treaty of Waitangi established a “partnership” between Maori and the Crown, and second is that the Treaty promised “equity” for Maori.

Firstly, Maori cannot be partners in any constitutional sense with the Crown – as the former Judge and law lecturer Anthony Willy explains, “It was and is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with her subjects. She can as she did in 1840 make promises to them but by definition, the Crown is supreme, and the people are subject to her laws.”

Essentially, any claim of the existence of a constitutional ‘partnership’ is a deception that is being used to gain power and subvert democracy.

Democratic rights are based on the notion of one person one vote. But by asserting constitutional ‘partnership’ rights as justification, separatists are calling for the 15 percent of Maori to be given, not 15 percent of democratic power, but 50 percent.

Maori co-governance is not democracy – co-governance destroys democracy as we know it.

Secondly, based on the absurd notion that the Treaty guarantees equal outcomes for Maori, the concept of “equity” has been fabricated to justify separatism.

Equity is a political construct invented by the Waitangi Tribunal and outlined in a 2019 report: “Article 3 of the Treaty confirms that Maori have all the rights and privileges of British subjects. The Tribunal has found that this article not only guarantees Maori freedom from discrimination but also obliges the Crown to positively promote equity.”

So, while there was no mention of equity in the 2001 Ministry of Maori Development’s guidance to the Government on the meaning of the Treaty ‘principles’, by the time the advice was re-written in 2019, it featured strongly: “Article Three has an implicit assurance that rights would be enjoyed equally by Maori with all New Zealanders” to attain “equitable outcomes”.

Even though governments are under no obligation to adopt Tribunal recommendations, Prime Minister Ardern’s administration is now pro-actively using the equity fabrication to claim that ‘Maori’ disparity, reflected in statistics on poorer health, higher unemployment, and an over-representation in the criminal justice system, is being caused, not by individual choices and circumstances, but by colonisation and institutional racism within government services. As a result, they maintain that equity and equal outcomes can only be delivered through separatist agencies – like the new Maori Health Authority – that embrace a Maori World View. 

This deception must be discredited, since it is now being used to justify the tribal control of government services, that underpins He Puapua.

So where does all this end?

Since first uncovering the Government’s explosive He Puapua report in March and exposing Jacinda Ardern’s secret agenda to impose tribal control by 2040, concerns are now widespread. Most people are horrified when they learn their Government is subjugating democracy to tribal authoritarianism by stealth.

Allegations are now swirling that He Puapua encompasses the ambitions of some of the country’s most radical Maori supremacists, and that the report was not only deliberately hidden from New Zealand First while they were in Government, but from the public until after the election – in case it was ‘misconstrued’.

There is clearly a great deal more to this than meets the eye. This debate is only just starting.

Please note – you can register for our free weekly newsletter by clicking HERE.


*Do you agree with the Labour Government’s proposal for a separatist Maori Health Authority?   
Note: Please feel free to use the poll comments to share your views on any of the issues raised in this week’s newsletter.

*Poll comments are posted below.


*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.


Click to view x 120


Absolutely NOT! Separatism has no place in NZ.  Graham
It is a relief to see National finally speaking out against this plan to impose Maori sovereignty onto NZ. It seems the media is starting to report on it too. Hopefully the general public will start to see the dangerous agenda being pursued by this socialist government.  and say enough is enough.  Dennis
The health reforms are totally unnecessary. If Labour wanted better outcomes for those they categorise as Maori there are dozens of changes they could make to improve the situation without upending the whole system. These changes are about separatists gaining control, not about improving health. Once again, we are being conned. Nadine
No to separatism in all of its forms. And thank you for uncovering what is going on. Without your insight, most people would not understand the huge threat that exists. Warwick
Once district health boards are gone, local people will have no say in their health system. This centralisation will be a disaster for many smaller communities. It is time that people informed this government that the proposed health reforms will be a disaster. Brian

The Tide is Turning