‘Refers to Horomia’s speech in Parliament’; \

‘Parekura Horomia ‘Minister Maori Affairs’ Speaker of the House’ (15^th September 2007).

‘UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION FOR RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’ (UNDRIP)

Parekura Horomia. announced that the “Mâori Party have their head in the clouds over non-binding UN Declaration-for Rights of Indigenous People”. He stated that “The Mâori Party is full of hollow talk over the government’s decision not to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and contrary to a number of misleading claims by the party’s co-leaders today, the New Zealand government did not vote against a move at the United Nations to outlaw discrimination against indigenous peoples”.

Horomia said “Nor does the government accept Tariana Turia’s ridiculous claim that this government believes indigenous people are “sub-human with only sub-human rights” – which I, and no doubt my Mâori caucus colleagues, frankly find offensive. The declaration adopted in the UN yesterday is in effect a wish list which fails to bind states to any of its provisions, this means it is toothless” and added “I’m actually more than a little surprised the Mâori Party is prepared to back something which effectively offers indigenous peoples no more than aspirational statements.”

Horomia added “our government has worked extremely hard over a number of years to help forge a declaration which protects and promotes the rights of indigenous peoples in a meaningful way – and which states could actually implement. The declaration adopted does neither and while we are proud of our efforts, we are deeply disappointed with the final result which we could not support.” He also pointed out that there are “four provisions we have problems with, which make the declaration fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements and established Treaty settlement policy” and he explained they are:-

“Article 26 of the UN Declaration (UNDRIP) states that indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. For New Zealand this covers potentially the entire country. “It appears to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous. This ignores contemporary reality and would be impossible to implement. The declaration also implies that indigenous people should have a right of veto over parliamentary law-making.” and……..

“The government strongly supports the full and active engagement of indigenous people in democratic decision-making processes. But these articles imply different classes of citizenship, where indigenous peoples have veto rights not held by others. Indigenous rights in New Zealand are of profound importance. The Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of this country and we have an unparalleled system for redress. Nearly 40 per cent of New Zealand fishing quota is owned by Maori and claims to over half of the country’s land area have been settled. We also have some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the world, where the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including the principle of informed consent, are enshrined in resource management law”.

Horomia concluded  “The Labour-led government is focused on pursuing goals which achieve real results for real people. It’s about time the Mâori Party got its head out of the clouds and focused on achieving some real milestones, rather than pie-in-the-sky talk which won’t make a lot of difference in our peoples’ lives”

RESEARCHED INFORMATION AND LINKS:

NZ CONSTITION & UNDRIP: The Green, Maori and Labour Parties are intent on  introducing the UNDRIP throughout NZ’s Constitution.  An UN News Media Report states ‘Eugene Sage stated  “It’s time to introduce the UNDRIP into NZ’s Constitution”. There is no concrete written constitution. Unlike many other nations New Zealand has no single constitutional document. It is an uncodified constitution, sometimes referred to as an ‘unwritten constitution’. It is an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources https://bpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/8/776/files/2022/11/The-Constitutional-Korero-Conference-Handbook-2022.pdf 44 pages pdf

PARTNERSHIP (Co-governance): Nanaia Mahuta refers to “refining aspects of the proposed new system as well as mechanisms for transition through continued partnership with the local government sector, iwi/mana whenua and industry” (NZ Water Conference-Expo 2022).. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/water-new-zealand-conference-and-expo-2022 .

HE PUAPUA, THREE WATERS & MAORI HEALTH AUTHORITY: Are all in the lead up to namely ‘NZ’s Vision 2040’ ( Crown (Govt) collaborating with the Iwi Chairs Forum.). Hence the pre-planning of the removal of the  Resource Management Act ) 2021 (RMA), replacing this with three new legislations that will accommodate the road to entrenching the UNDRIP into New Zealand’s economy. Infrastructure, education, health etc., (Co-governance)

SIGNING OF UN DECLARATION FOR RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE (UNDRIP): New Zealand does a U-Turn on UNDRIP as Pita Sharples Minister of Maori Affairs secretly travels to New York UN Assembly to sign UN Declaration for Rights of Indigenous People. UNDRIP is known as an ‘aspirational document’. Labour stated that the signing of the UNDRIP by NZ would create ‘two classes of citizenship in NZ’ and would give “indigenous Maori ‘veto rights over the laws made in Parliament”. John Key assured NZr’s the UNDRIP is “non-binding” https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3599153/NZ-does-U-turn-on-rights-charter

RIPPLES FROM THE ‘DRIP’ (UNDRIP) Stuff NZ reported 1^st May 2010. Refers to the  advancement of Maori Sovereignty and the Maori Party advanced its agenda of apartheid of two peoples in one land. Maori to hold an especially privileged place in NZ. High Court Judge Eddie Durie noted that the ‘UN declaration will influence all future law and policy practice, and spoke of a ‘tax payer funded jaunt to New York’  The damage will be considerable. “The Right to Self-determination is to(Art 3) ‘freely determine their political status’ (Art 4) UNDRIP. Maori activists will see this as ‘seperatism’. John Key stated that the UNDRIP is merely an ‘aspiration’. (Art 19) UNDRIP ‘The Government & it’s Successors give the ‘right of veto’ to Maori upon policies they consider may not be in their best interest’. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/columnists/3619989/Ripples-from-this-DRIP-will-be-far-reaching

MY PERSONAL OPINIONS: The UNDRIP ‘Self Determination of Indigenous people’. That ‘Self-determination’ only applies to certain Iwi Elite (Individuals, Organizations, Corporations etc). The aspect of all New Zealanders lives are determined in far away places. New Zealand is the outpost of the UN/WEF (NZ is the WEF Guineapig State). UN-WEF Strategic Partnership signed 13/6/2019. UNDRIP is an advancement, an integral process towards ‘co-governance’ namely a two tier class of citizenship namely ‘Cultural Marxism’                                                                      UNDRIP (Non-binding) Agreement:  ‘Non-binding’ does not mean the government is not committed action this because it’s classified as ‘non-binding’. All UN ‘non-binding’ agreements sit in Parliament as a ‘Soft Law’ also known as ‘Grey Matter’. Hence can be entered into legislation by entering this into ‘Domestic Policy’, therefore becoming ‘Hard Law’ (Legislation). Legal but not necessarily ‘Lawful’. Non-binding UN agreements require no consensus in Parliament therefore are automatically accepted by all political parties. This is dangerous and ‘un-democratic’, the sovereign peoples of NZ have no decision making rights, neither do any political party member.

LINKS: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/m%C3%A2ori-party%E2%80%99s-head-clouds-over-non-binding-un-declaration         

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/columnists/3619989/Ripples-from-this-DRIP-will-be-far-reaching

Carol Sakey  https://wakeupupnz.org

https://teara.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-identity/print

New Zealand identity by Fiona Barker

A scenic paradise inhabited by friendly Māori; a far-flung land where rugged bushmen hunt deer in the backblocks; the social laboratory of the world, trialling innovative policies; a courageous small nation standing up to the US over nuclear-ship visits – these are all strands that have contributed to New Zealand’s multiple national identities over time.  Understanding New Zealand national identity: National identity is a form of social identity – meaning people’s understanding of who they are in relation to others. National identity is a shared understanding of the characteristics and behaviours that distinguish one nation from other nations.

Multiple Identities: National identity is not fixed and has multiple strands- Different people and groups view the nation in different ways. A Southland farmer may describe New Zealand identity differently from a Pacific person in South Auckland – National identity may change depending on the situation. Many people notice that being a New Zealander means something different to them when they travel overseas. – Internal national identity may be different from external identity. An external identity is how a nation state presents itself to other peoples and countries. A strong external identity helps a country to have a strong diplomatic presence internationally and to advance national economic interests. Major export-oriented industries, such as education and tourism, rely for their success on a positive external image or ‘national brand’. – National identities evolve over time. New Zealand identity has changed due to the shifting relationship with Britain, changing relationships among Māori, Pākehā and newer New Zealanders, and the interaction of New Zealand with other countries and cultures.

Expressions of identity: National identity is expressed in many different ways. In New Zealand’s case these include:- deliberate promotion of images by the state through symbols like flags or coins, immigration propaganda or tourist advertising, or through displays such as international exhibitions – the performance of New Zealanders internationally in war or in sport – major political acts that attract international attention, such as when New Zealand banned visits by nuclear-powered and -armed ships – artistic portrayals, in films, books, art or music.

The Overseas view of New Zealand’s identity: The external image of New Zealand may be quite different from the way locals see it. In 2004 a contributor to a web page of ideas about New Zealand wrote: ‘I close my eyes and just imagine what “New Zealand” will be like, and I get the best vibes, the cool ocean wind relaxing my senses, the blue skies making me fly, the lovely grass caressing me like a newborn and the people treating me like one of their own. All this when I haven’t even seen New Zealand, what happens when I actually do?’

Māori identity Before the European settlement of New Zealand, Māori tribes did not share an overarching national identity. The 1835 Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand by the Confederation of United Tribes, and the 1834 choice of an ensign that became known as the United Tribes’ flag, introduced symbols of a shared identity. However, this did not mean that there was a single national indigenous political authority and shared identity. The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 by chiefs of iwi from around the country suggests that the British Crown made a treaty with the leaders of many nations, not a single nation with a unified identity.

Colonialism and New Zealand identity After New Zealand became a colony of the United Kingdom, largely peopled by British settlers, the relationship with ‘Home’ (Britain) was a central focus of identity. The extent of loyalty to Britain varied over time – but at least from the late 19th century until the 1950s New Zealand’s identity was contained within an imperial identity. New Zealanders saw their country as playing a special role as a loyal member of the British Empire, and for a long time New Zealand aspired to be a ‘Britain of the South’. Until the 1960s few New Zealanders yearned for an identity independent of the empire. Since then there has been a stronger sense of a separate identity, located firmly in the South Pacific.

Contested identity:  Social struggles from the 1960s onwards showed that, as in every nation, New Zealanders had diverse understandings of their country and its identity. This contrasted with the memory of united suffering and identity from the first and second world wars. Debate about New Zealand involvement in the Vietnam War, the anti-nuclear movement, and the 1981 Springbok rugby tour provoked conflict among New Zealanders as to the nature of their country. Debate also existed about whether New Zealand was a bicultural or multicultural nation, and whether it should see itself as part of Asia, as a Pacific nation, or as still closely linked to the United Kingdom.

LAND: The Land has always been central to New Zealanders’ identity. Māori believed that Papatūānuku, the earth mother, was the origin of all life. People were born from the land and returned to the land. The word for land (whenua) was also the word for placenta. Tribes typically assert their identity in relation to their mountains and rivers.

Pioneering the land: British navigator James Cook’s three voyages of exploration established a view of New Zealand as a fertile place which could become a site of prosperous European-style agriculture. Sydney Parkinson, the artist on Cook’s first voyage, believed that the East Coast ‘with proper cultivation, might be rendered a kind of second Paradise’¹. Such images were reinforced by 19th-century immigration propaganda designed to attract landless rural labourers to the new country. They were promised a land with a benign climate and productive soil for growing crops.

Southern Eden In 1954 Patrick O’Donovan of the English Observer, who was in New Zealand for the royal tour of Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, wrote that New Zealand was ‘like one of those fat and promised lands that restless men have always believed to lie on the other side of the hills. It is green and seamed with ranks of trees.’² The Queen herself was told that ‘a waste of fern, bush and swamp’ had become ‘the rich, productive area it is today’.³ From the early 20th century this rural ideal was strengthened by the idea that men and women who worked on New Zealand farms had strength and do-it-yourself ingenuity, in contrast to the decadent and physically inept populations in older countries. The hard work of the New Zealand pioneers was valued for having turned bush into productive farm land. Even in the early 2000s – although 85% of New Zealanders lived in urban areas – many still thought of themselves as part of a largely rural or agricultural nation.

Pure New Zealand: While some early European visitors to New Zealand thought that its natural scenery had romantic features, for a long time Pākehā saw the bush as monotonous and frightening. However, at the end of the 19th century New Zealand sought to attract foreign tourists. The Department of Tourist and Health Resorts was established in 1901 and promoted a view of New Zealand as ‘the most wonderful Scenic paradise in the World – unequalled Fjords, Awe-Inspiring Geysers’.⁴ The areas of the southern lakes and the ‘hot lakes’ around Rotorua were especially praised. During the 20th century New Zealand’s golden beaches became symbols of natural beauty, and as areas of indigenous forest became smaller there was a movement to preserve the bush as essential to New Zealand’s distinctiveness. ‘The most beautiful country in the world’ became part of New Zealand’s self-image. The campaign to save Lake Manapōuri from being raised for hydroelectric power production in the early 1970s was a significant moment in the evolution of this view.

In the early 2000s New Zealand’s wild landscapes were promoted through calendars, glossy picture books and travel advertising. Tourism New Zealand featured a ‘100% Pure’ campaign which suggested a world of unpolluted lakes and rivers and pristine forests. Environmental campaigners frequently pointed out that the country’s record in areas such as water and air pollution was not as ‘clean and green’ as many New Zealanders liked to believe.                              

 The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and the replacement Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, legislating as a consequence of Māori claims to the foreshore and seabed, provoked political debate. In part, this was because the legislation touched the strong and often emotional connection that New Zealanders, Māori and Pākehā, had with the land, beaches and the ocean

Footnotes

1. Sydney Parkinson, journal, 23 October 1769. http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/parkinson/134.html(last accessed 1 November 2011). Back
2. Evening Post, 4 February 1954.Back
3. A tour of New Zealand by Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, 1953–1954. Wellington: Secretary for Internal Affairs, 1953.Back
4. Quoted in Lydia Wevers, Country of writing: travel writing and New Zealand, 1809–1900. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 2002, p. 182.Back

War and sport: National identity is often shaped by remembered success and failure in war. This is certainly true of New Zealand’s 20th-century wars. But the battles between British and Māori during the 19th century were less often commemorated as founding moments of New Zealand. While Māori remembered them, Pākehā preferred to forget. This makes New Zealand different from societies like the United States, where the Civil War of 1861–5 is central to national identity and memory.

South African War The first occasion when New Zealanders gained national pride and international attention in war was in the South African War (1899–1902). The 10 contingents of New Zealand soldiers (6,500 men) established a reputation as brave soldiers who were adaptable, full of initiative and natural leaders.

First World War: The deaths of over 18,000 and the service of over 100,000 soldiers in the First World War (1914–18) became a key feature of New Zealand’s national memory and identity. Foreign observers gave them international recognition, and in meeting soldiers from other countries Kiwis judged themselves against others.

International praise: New Zealanders like to quote, and requote, the praise showered on their soldiers at Gallipoli. King George V said the New Zealand troops had ‘proved themselves worthy sons of Empire’; Sir Ian Hamilton, the British commander, said they had ‘upheld the finest traditions of our race’; poet John Masefield described them as ‘the flower of the world’s manhood’.¹While fewer died at Gallipoli than on the Western Front, the landing at Gallipoli in Turkey on 25 April 1915 became especially commemorated as the first significant occasion when New Zealanders displayed their courage to the world. In 1920 that day became a public holiday, Anzac Day; it has been a national day of commemoration ever since. Although New Zealanders seek to distinguish themselves from Australians in many ways, the close relationship forged in the First World War between New Zealand and Australia, and commemorated through the ‘ANZAC spirit’, has remained important to how New Zealanders understand their history.

Second World War  The experience of New Zealand soldiers fighting in Greece, Crete, North Africa and Italy during the Second World War reinforced New Zealand men’s sense of themselves as tough, adaptable and egalitarian. The service of New Zealand women abroad as nurses or at home as factory workers or housewives established their reputation as dependable and able to ‘make do’.

Sport: International sport was another area where New Zealanders demonstrated their identity to themselves and the world. The success of All Black rugby teams since 1905 and netball teams since the 1970s established an image of New Zealanders as good at working in teams and with a physical strength which was thought to have derived from a rural background. Rowing successes reinforced this image.Individual sporting successes such as Jack Lovelock at the 1936 Olympics, Yvette Williams at the 1952 Olympics, Peter Snell at the 1960 Rome and 1964 Tokyo Olympics and John Walker at Montreal in 1976 were also noteworthy, and like Edmund Hillary’s success in climbing Everest in 1953, presented New Zealanders as people who had strength and stamina, yet were modest and down-to-earth. From the 1990s, New Zealand’s yachting successes in the America’s Cup evoked the image of a people who combined physical abilities with cutting-edge technological innovation. Footnotes:- Quoted in Jock Phillips, A man’s country?: the image of the pakeha male, a history. Auckland: Penguin, 1987, p. 165. Back

Politics:

Social laboratory of the world– During the 1890s the innovations of the Liberal government attracted international interest and established an image of New Zealand as a place that pioneered political experiments. These innovations included: giving women the vote in 1893, the first country in the world to do so- the 1894 introduction of a system of compulsory arbitration in industrial relations – legislation in the early 1890s to break up the large landed estates and establish more egalitarian smallholdings – the introduction of old-age pensions in 1898.

Foreign observers: Reports from visitors to New Zealand helped promote the idea that New Zealand had a distinctive political tradition. American journalist Henry Demarest Lloyd described New Zealand as the country without strikes; French socialist André Metin defined its philosophy as socialism without doctrine; and French geographer and economist André Siegfried agreed that New Zealanders had a contempt for theory. Later governments built on this reputation for experimentation and novelty in such initiatives as the welfare-state measures of the 1930s, the introduction of a government accident compensation scheme in the 1970s, the introduction of a radical policy of open government in 1982 and the free-market policies of the 1980s and early 1990s.

An independent status: The movement from a British identity towards a New Zealand identity was also expressed in political change. New Zealand did not experience a sudden moment of independence. After its transition from British colony to dominion status in 1907, New Zealand’s relationship with the United Kingdom weakened over time. The 1931 Statute of Westminster of the British Parliament, which removed its right to legislate for New Zealand, was ratified by New Zealand only in 1947. Some institutions took longer to establish in New Zealand. New Zealand’s Supreme Court replaced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal only in 2003. The country’s place as a member of the Commonwealth still shaped it in the 2000s.

Citizenship: Changes in citizenship policy affected the way New Zealanders understood their national identity. In 1948 New Zealand citizenship was created. However, the Citizenship Act 1977 was the first time that all links between British and New Zealand citizenship ceased. New Zealanders had previously been subjects of the British Empire, but the Citizenship Act 1977 made their citizenship – imprinted in the New Zealand passport – simply that of New Zealander.

Trade: The process of moving away from Britain also occurred in New Zealand’s foreign and economic policy. In 1973 the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community (EEC). New Zealand lost its privileged access to the British market, and began searching for new markets throughout the world. Active, government-led protest against French nuclear testing in the South Pacific showed that New Zealand foreign policy increasingly focused on the Pacific. Prime Minister Jim Bolger suggested in the early 1990s that New Zealand should think of itself as part of Asia.

Moral example: The idea of serving as a moral example to the world has been an important element of New Zealand national identity. The anti-apartheid movement in the 1970s and 1980s, protests against French nuclear testing at Moruroa atoll in the 1970s, and popular support for the New Zealand government’s anti-nuclear position in the 1980s were manifestations of this. In 1985 a United States naval ship, the USS Buchanan, was denied entry to New Zealand and Prime Minister David Lange gave a famous anti-nuclear speech at the Oxford Union debate in the UK. In 1987 Parliament passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act, banning visits by nuclear-armed or -powered vessels. Many New Zealanders saw these as the courageous actions of a small nation staking out a clear position on the world stage.

Political ideals: Ever since Prime Minister Peter Fraser’s strong stand at the 1945 San Francisco conference which established the United Nations, New Zealand has consistently promoted human rights and multilateral action through international institutions like the United Nations. New Zealanders have held to other ideals as central to the nation’s political culture. Although not all agree, some claim that New Zealanders believe egalitarianism, a ‘fair go’, easy access to politicians and ideological pragmatism are important features of New Zealand’s political culture.

New Zealand’s peoples: Fierce Māori – At least until the 1850s the identity of New Zealand to European observers was strongly affected by the fact that the majority of the people were Māori. Early contact established an image of Māori as fierce fighters and cannibals, and New Zealand gained a reputation in the early 19th century as a dangerous place.

Romantic Māori: The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 established an ideal that Māori and Pākehā were ‘one people’, and there was an official policy of assimilating Māori into European culture. Gradually New Zealand came to promote itself as a model of race relations. Following the New Zealand wars and the pacification of Māori resistance, and with the Māori population dropping to under 50,000 in the 1890s, some Pākehā began to romanticise Māori. They turned to Māori culture as a source of a distinct New Zealand identity and promoted New Zealand as ‘Maoriland’. Māori designs entered New Zealand life and the All Blacks adopted the Māori haka.

One or two? The idea that Māori and Pākehā were one people became widespread by the early 20th century. Kate Sheppard, the women’s suffrage leader, wrote in 1901, ‘Maori and Pakeha have become one people, under one Sovereign and one Parliament, glorying alike in the one title of “New Zealander”’.¹ However, this belief rarely accorded with reality. As historian Michael King has written, New Zealand society was marked by ‘at least two cultures and two heritages, very often looking in two different directions’.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         20th-century conflicts: During the first half of the 20th century Pākehā believed that New Zealand was living a ‘golden age’ of harmonious co-existence among ethnic groups and that the country had ‘the best race relations in the world’. From the 1960s activism by Māori grew in protest at their political, social and economic circumstances. The 1975 march to Parliament to protest grievances over land loss and Ngāti Whātua’s 1977–78 occupation of Bastion Point (Takaparawhā) in Auckland were examples of protests that advocated a stronger recognition of Māori identity in national life. This Māori renaissance encouraged a strengthening of Māori cultural expressions in art, language and tikanga (customs). The Māori language was promoted through the kōhanga reo (language-learning nest) movement and Māori-language media from the 1980s. When the national anthem was sung solely in Māori prior to an All Blacks’ game in the 1999 Rugby World Cup in England, vigorous public debate ensued. Two important symbols of national identity – sport and language – came into conflict. New Zealanders disagreed over whether bilingualism was central to the national identity. Despite this, by the 1990s most government agencies had adopted both Māori and English official names and signage and the Māori language was increasingly part of New Zealand life. Māori ritual was increasingly used to welcome foreign guests, and Māori motifs such as the koru (unfolding fern frond) were widely adopted. Outside New Zealand, Māori culture and indigenous practice became prominent in the country’s external national image. This was partly because, as Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen said in 2006, Māori were ‘the New Zealanders who, by definition, make us different from any other nation’.³ An early example of such external promotion was the Te Māori exhibition of Māori arts and artefacts, which toured internationally from 1984 to 1986. Partly in response to Māori protest, from the 1980s onwards New Zealand governments adopted a policy of biculturalism. This implied a partnership between Māori and the Crown, whereby the government ensured that services were appropriate to both cultures. Some people criticised this approach for identifying a particular ethnic group as distinctive. There was tension between those believing in ‘one nation’, and those who thought that multiple identity groups co-existed within an overarching New Zealand identity.

Immigration, multiculturalism and diversity: From the mid-1980s New Zealand society became increasingly multicultural. Following the Immigration Act 1986, which removed rules that gave preference to certain countries of origin, immigrants arrived from many countries. Whereas in 1986 12.4% of New Zealand’s population identified themselves as Māori, 3.7% as Pacific and just 1.5% as Asian, by 2006 14.6% were Māori, 6.9% Pacific and 9.2% Asian. 21.8% of New Zealand residents were born overseas. These changes brought vibrancy and visible diversity to New Zealand’s cities. The multicultural society meant there were many ways of being a New Zealander. For instance, the Pacific presence in the national identity became stronger in arts, music and sport. One challenge for New Zealanders was to reconcile a multicultural society with the policy of biculturalism. New Zealanders have traditionally seen themselves as tolerant and open, and New Zealanders score highly in international surveys on measures of social liberalism. In 2002 Prime Minister Helen Clark stated that the government saw New Zealand as ‘a land where diversity is valued and reflected in our national identity’.⁴ Almost all New Zealand political leaders supported this view.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Footnotes:

National Council of Women conference report, 1901, pp. 13–14. Back

Michael King, The Penguin history of New Zealand. Auckland: Penguin, 2003, p. 167. Back

Quoted in P. Skilling, ‘National identity in a diverse society.’ In New Zealand government and politics, edited by Raymond Miller. 5th ed. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 62. Back                                                                                                                                                                                     Quoted in ‘National identity in a diverse society,’ p. 61.                                                                                                                                                                                Culture and arts: Art, literature, music and film unofficially reflect many important aspects of a national identity. The arts confirm a sense of identity for locals and help establish the character of New Zealand for people overseas. In particular, they show us how the geographical and cultural anchors of New Zealand identity have changed over time.

Colonial culture: Much 19th-century literature is known for its romantic accounts of rural life in New Zealand. It often embodied the pioneer mythology. Some of the poetry and novels at the end of the 19th century romanticised Māori – as did paintings such as those by Charles Goldie.

Expatriation: In the early 20th century some significant writers and artists saw New Zealand as a desolate cultural landscape. A number, such as the writer Katherine Mansfield and the painter Frances Hodgkins, expatriated themselves. Most novelists published their books in London for a British readership, although they often used colonial settings.                                                                                                                               Cultural nationalism: From the mid-1930s a cultural nationalist movement sought to establish a thriving local culture and break with British traditions. The men alone in the rugged bush and mountains, or the moment of European discovery of New Zealand, were favourite themes. They were expressed in John Mulgan’s novel Man alone, Denis Glover’s poems about Arawata Bill, Allen Curnow’s verse and composer Douglas Lilburn’s ‘Landfall in unknown seas’. Painters such as Rita Angus, Colin McCahon and Toss Woollaston also focused on the distinctive landscapes of New Zealand. At a popular level, writers such as Barry Crump elevated the hard life of the backblocks deer culler into a national icon.

New ‘home’: The poet Denis Glover, who helped establish a local publishing outlet, Caxton Press, showed in his 1936 poem ‘Home thoughts’ how ‘home’ had moved for many New Zealanders: I do not dream of Sussex downs or quaint old England’s quaint old towns—I think of what may yet be seen in Johnsonville or Geraldine.¹

Film and television: From the 1960s New Zealand television reflected New Zealanders to themselves. Expressive of the rural mythology, Country calendar became New Zealand’s longest-running programme, and John Clarke established a large following for his comic persona Fred Dagg, a gumboot-wearing farmer. Local film-makers took time to become established. Some, such as Jane Campion, left New Zealand to build their career abroad. Not until the 1990s, with the more rapid growth of the local film industry around Peter Jackson’s film productions, was it common for film-makers to make their career in New Zealand. Jackson’s films, particularly The lord of the rings trilogy, became hugely important in presenting images of the New Zealand landscape to the world. Māori filmmakers such as Taika Waititi also presented Māori culture and identity on the big screen. The work of Weta Digital – creating digital and special effects for movies – conveyed an image of New Zealanders as technically sophisticated.

Diversity: Contemporary New Zealand literature, film, theatre and music is enriched by the diversity in New Zealand’s population. Composer Gareth Farr incorporates European, Māori and Pacific strands into his classical compositions, while musicians such as Che Fu, King Kapisi and Ladi6 present a strongly Pacific-flavoured New Zealand identity to the global hip-hop scene. New Zealand reggae – infused particularly with a Māori and Pacific flavour – is also represented internationally by groups such as TrinityRoots and Fat Freddy’s Drop.

Modern expatriation Although cultural life flourishes in New Zealand, expatriation remained a major phenomenon among New Zealanders in the 2000s. Over 16% of New Zealand citizens, and almost 25% of tertiary-educated New Zealanders, were estimated to live abroad. The largest group of overseas New Zealanders lived in Australia. In 2001 the Kiwi Expat Association (KEA) was founded to connect New Zealanders overseas to the nation, to enhance business opportunities and to promote New Zealand around the world. Their activities are a reminder that the nation also includes New Zealanders not currently resident in the country.

The ‘OE’ (overseas experience), whereby young New Zealanders travel and work abroad, was seen as an important rite of passage. This circulation of New Zealanders in and out of the country had become part of the national identity. It shaped how New Zealand and New Zealanders interacted with, and related to, the wider world.

Footnotes: Denis Glover, ‘Home thoughts.’ In The Penguin book of New Zealand verse, edited by Ian Wedde and Harvey McQueen. Auckland: Penguin, 1985, p. 211. Back

Symbols of identity; National identity is also reproduced on a daily basis through national symbols and everyday items. These range from official symbols such as stamps, flags, coins or coats of arms through to trademarks or the popular icons commonly known as ‘kiwiana’.

Stars, land and sea: New Zealand’s location in the southern hemisphere was symbolised by the Southern Cross constellation in both the United Tribes’ Flag (the first national flag, adopted in 1834) and the New Zealand Ensign (the national flag since 1902). The Southern Cross was also used on the tomb of the unknown warrior, established in 2004 at the national war memorial in Wellington.

New Zealand’s distance across the seas from Britain was symbolised in the waves and sailing ships found in early crests. In the 19th century the Southern Alps featured in early tourism books and were represented in the 1898 stamp issue, one of the first pictorial stamp sets in the world. In the 20th century the beach became a more important national symbol, expressed in late-20th-century Christmas cards of flowering pōhutukawa trees and the kiwiana symbol of jandals. The national identity of New Zealanders as pioneering farmers was expressed in the use of sheep as a symbol of New Zealand. Sheep also appeared in coats of arms. More recently gumboots, no. 8 fencing wire (symbolising the alleged innovative ‘can-do’ attitude of New Zealanders) and the Swanndri bush shirt have been kiwiana cultural icons originating in farming.

Native flora and fauna: Indigenous plants and animals quickly became symbols of New Zealand. The Māori koru design, which was eventually adopted by Pākehā, depicted an unfurling fern frond. In the 19th century ferns were represented in books and in cabinet-making, and New Zealand became known as ‘fernland’. The fern was used to mark the graves of New Zealand soldiers and appeared on stamps and coins. Native birds were also quickly adopted as symbols. In the colonial period the moa was a pre-eminent symbol of the country – but from the early 20th century the kiwi was the dominant symbol. During the First World War New Zealand soldiers became known as ‘Kiwis’. This soon spread to become the common name for all New Zealanders and an adjective applied to all things New Zealand. Even the country’s currency became known as the kiwi. In 2011 the dollar coin featured a kiwi and ferns. In 1990 the symbol for the sesquicentennial of the Treaty of Waitangi was a white heron (kōtuku).

War and sport: New Zealand’s achievements in war were symbolised by the distinctive lemon-squeezer hats worn by its soldiers, and in the hundreds of war memorials placed at crossroads in the 1920s and the memorial halls built after the Second World War. The success of the All Blacks rugby team made the silver fern on a black background into a widely used symbol of the country. Some even promoted it as the design for a possible new national flag. Edmund Hillary’s triumph in climbing Mt Everest led to his portrait being used on the $5 note from 1990.

Politics: New Zealand’s early status as a colony of Great Britain gave the Union Jack a continuing place on the national flag. At the beginning of the 20th century the figure of Zealandia, daughter of Britannia, briefly became a symbol for the adolescent nation. In 2011 the Queen as head of state remained on the coins, the $20 banknote and many stamp issues. New Zealand’s reforming history found expression in the portrait of Kate Sheppard, pioneering suffragist, on the $10 banknote.

Māori: Māori designs were used quite often on 19th-century publications, especially tourist books. They also became common on trademarks and stamps. The $50 banknote featured early-20th-century Ngāti Porou politician Apirana Ngata. A piece of pounamu (greenstone), often carved, became a common item of dress distinguishing Kiwis overseas in the late 20th century, and designs with koru elements were important in the branding of many public agencies.

In sum, the different ways in which New Zealand identity has been expressed over time have been given symbolic form in the everyday imagery of New Zealand life.

External links and sources

More suggestions and sources

Barker, F. ‘Political culture: patterns and issues.’ In New Zealand government and politics, edited by Raymond Miller. 5th ed. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2010: 13–28.

Belich, James. Paradise reforged: a history of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the year 2000. Auckland: Allen Lane; Penguin, 2001.

Bell, Claudia. Inventing New Zealand: everyday myths of Pakeha identity. Auckland: Penguin, 1996.

Byrnes, Giselle, ed. The new Oxford history of New Zealand. South Melbourne; Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Liu, James H., and others, eds. New Zealand identities: departures and destinations. Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2005.

Skilling, P. ‘National identity in a diverse society.’ In New Zealand government and politics, edited by Raymond Miller. 5th ed. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2010: 54-65.

How to cite this page: Fiona Barker, ‘New Zealand identity’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-identity/print (accessed 28 March 2023) Story by Fiona Barker, published 20 Jun 2012

The idea that Māori and Pākehā were one people became widespread by the early 20th century. Kate Sheppard, the women’s suffrage leader, wrote in 1901, ‘Maori and Pakeha have become one people, under one Sovereign and one Parliament, glorying alike in the one title of “New Zealander”’.¹ However, this belief rarely accorded with reality. As historian Michael King has written, New Zealand society was marked by ‘at least two cultures and two heritages, very often looking in two different directions’.²

Foreign observers: Reports from visitors to New Zealand helped promote the idea that New Zealand had a distinctive political tradition. American journalist Henry Demarest Lloyd described New Zealand as the country without strikes; French socialist André Metin defined its philosophy as socialism without doctrine; and French geographer and economist André Siegfried agreed that New Zealanders had a contempt for theory. 

International praise New Zealanders like to quote, and requote, the praise showered on their soldiers at Gallipoli. King George V said the New Zealand troops had ‘proved themselves worthy sons of Empire’; Sir Ian Hamilton, the British commander, said they had ‘upheld the finest traditions of our race’; poet John Masefield described them as ‘the flower of the world’s manhood’.¹

THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources in New Zealand.

1.2 Many New Zealanders are taking action to conserve the environment. Throughout New Zealand, iwi, hapū, and community groups are working to monitor, protect, and enhance the health of their environment.

1.3 Some natural resources are “co-governed” – the work to restore or conserve them is led as a result of negotiated decision-making arrangements between iwi and/or other groups, central government, and/or local government. Many of these arrangements have come about after long negotiations, including Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The arrangements have many legal forms and include statutory bodies, trusts, and other relationships.

1.4We looked at a selection of these arrangements to identify what works well and what does not. We wanted to identify factors that need to be considered when setting up and maintaining effective co-governance arrangements.

What we looked at

1.5 We looked at eight examples of co-governance and how co-governance is being used for environmental projects (see Figure 1). The examples are:- Waikato River Authority;- Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Auckland); – Te Waihora Co-Governance Agreement (Lake Ellesmere, Canterbury); – Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group; – Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao (Tauranga); – Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust (Waikato);- Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Reserves Board; and Parakai Recreation Reserve Board.

Locations of the co-governance examples we looked at

1.6 All the examples involved iwi and local authorities. Some also included community groups. Some arose out of Treaty of Waitangi claims settlements. Others were voluntary, including one that was later formalised through a Treaty settlement.

1.7 We reviewed participants’ experiences and perceptions and used that information to identify what helps to set up and operate co-governance arrangements successfully.

1.8 Although our main interest was in co-governance, we looked at examples that were sometimes a mixture of co-governance and co-management. We identified principles that apply generally to both co-governance and co-management.

1.9 In resource management work, the terms “co-governance” and “co-management” are both used to describe negotiated arrangements between iwi, central government, local government, and/or local groups to achieve effective management of an environmental or conservation resource.

1.10 These terms are sometimes used interchangeably because their definitions are not well understood. Governance focuses on strategic matters, while management is concerned with day-to-day operational responsibilities. When used correctly, the terms can describe the extent of decision-making powers (see Figure 2).
Comparing co-management and co-governance

CO- MANAGEMENT: The collaborative process of decision-making and problem solving within the administration of conservation policy

CO-GOVERNANCE: Arrangements in which ultimate decision-making authority resides with a collaborative body exercising devolved power – where power and responsibility are shared between government and local stakeholders

1.11 Where natural resources are managed as part of or after a Treaty settlement, co-governance often means that there are equal numbers of iwi representatives and council members involved. Usually (an exception is the Waikato River Authority), councils retain final decision-making powers over the management of natural resources. This is in keeping with councils’ responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002.

1.12 In the examples we looked at, some were about governance and others more about management. In some, people’s roles included elements of both governance and management.

1.13 The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 set up the Waikato River Authority as a co-governance entity. The Waikato River Authority sets the direction for managing the Waikato River in its “Vision and Strategy” document. This document is considered to be part of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. It is binding on all national, regional, and district policy and decisions for the management of the river.

1.14 The Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority is also a co-governance entity. Auckland Council is responsible for managing the Maunga, under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority.

1.15 The Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group is charged with providing leadership in putting into effect its vision and strategy for the Rotorua lakes and their catchments. As the governance group, it provides the direction, vision, and strategic oversight for the lakes programme. The strategy group needs to approve any decisions about funding under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme.

1.16 Local authorities usually control the creation, membership, and disestablishment of joint committees. However, when they are part of Treaty redress, the creation and membership of these committees are agreed between councils and iwi and provided for in Treaty legislation. This is the case for the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group. The Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act 2006 provides for the establishment of a permanent joint committee that can be disestablished only with the agreement of all parties. This means that the Te Arawa Lakes Trust is an equal member with the regional and district councils.

1.17 As we have mentioned, some of the examples we looked at contained elements of co-governance and co-management. The parties to the Te Waihora Co-Governance Agreement told us that their arrangement was “one step away from true co-governance”. However, the partners were clear that they wanted an arrangement that allowed for some form of co-governance:

Ngāi Tahu own the lake bed via the treaty settlement, which must mean something. It’s at the least a very powerful symbol, but not just symbolic. [You] can’t dismiss their view, even though they have no [Resource Management Act] powers.

1.18 Importantly, in this instance, the parties are clear about their limits but also clear about where they want to get to: “[It’s] not quite co-governance … The arrangement starts at co-management, with the mechanism to move to co-governance.” The parties’ agreement confirmed their commitment to “strive toward appropriate vesting of decision-making powers in the Parties as co-governors over the Te Waihora catchment”.

1.19 The members of Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao are clear that they are co-managers. The Mauao Trust, as the owners of the historic reserve, are the governors.

1.20 In the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust’s case, the Trust has a co-governance structure, where the board is co-chaired by a mana whenua representative and a 3).landowner representative. The Trust members maintain that the co-governance regime ensures that tikanga Māori is incorporated in governance and day-to-day management decisions.

1.21 Responsibility for managing the scenic reserve rests with Waipa District Council. The Council has a working relationship with the Trust to deliver the desired outcomes. For the land within the fenced perimeter but outside the reserve, it is intended that the Trust will manage the land as though part of the scenic reserve. Landowner covenants would cover this management arrangement.

What we did not look at: We did not look at the effectiveness of the co-governance arrangements in achieving environmental outcomes because, in most instances, it was too early to assess effectiveness. However, we have reported their achievements to date, where these are publicly available (see the Appendices).

How we carried out our work 1.23 To carry out our work, we:  Reviewed co-governance literature and material relating to the examples that we chose; visited Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty (Tauranga and Rotorua), and Canterbury to meet the people involved and to understand their projects well; and interviewed 54 people in central government, local authorities, iwi, and community groups, most with governance and/or operational roles.

1.24 Because each co-governance arrangement was different, we had lines of questioning to guide our conversations. Basing our questions on our expectations of good governance and leadership, we focused on:-clarity of purpose; roles and responsibilities; capability; accountability and integrity; information and reporting; and financial sustainability.

Structure of this report

1.25- In Part 2, we discuss the importance of effective relationships when setting up and putting into effect co-governance arrangements.

1.26 In Part 3, we discuss how parties need to build and maintain a shared understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

1.27 In Part 4, we discuss how parties need to put in place the processes and understandings about how they will work together to achieve their purpose.

1.28 In Part 5, we discuss how important it is to involve people with the right experience and capacity in setting up and putting into effect co-governance arrangements.

1.29 In Part 6, we discuss how parties need to plan for accountability reporting and financial sustainability.

1.30 Appendices 1-6 provide background information about six of the co-governance examples.

INTERESTING LINKS:-

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/summary.pdf  Summary of our report Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources – Controller-Auditor General  2 pages pdf Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources February 2016  68 page pdf

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/co-governance-amended.pdf (Co-Governance Amended Report)  The Purpose of this Report:–

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/summary.pdf

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/part1.htm (This report)

4.NZ GOVERNMENT MADE A REFERENCE TO IN THIS REPORT: Source: Dodson, G. (2014), “Co-Governance and Local Empowerment? Conservation Partnership Frameworks and Marine Protection at Mimiwhangata, New Zealand” in Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal (2014) Volume 7, Issue 25, available at www.tandfonline.com.

https://store.thomsonreuters.co.nz/waking-the-taniwha-maori-governance-in-the-21st-century-ebk/productdetail/126608 Thomsonrueters.co.nz

https://www.boardroompractice.co.nz/files/96/file/NZ-govt-owned-companies-pdf 21 pages PDF

http://my.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgxw/202210/t20221026_10792358.htm  A series of new ideas, new thinking, and new strategies on national governance, and achieved a new breakthrough in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of our times. We have endeavoured to use this new theory to arm ourselves intellectually, guide our practice, and advance our work. This theory provides us with fundamental guidance for advancing the cause of our Party and our country in the new era. A global network of partnership. Comrades. The great achievements of the new era have come from the collective dedication and hard work of our Party and our people. Here, on behalf of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, I express our heartfelt gratitude to all of our Party members, to the people of all ethnic groups, to all other political parties, people’s organizations, and patriotic figures from all sectors of society, to our fellow compatriots in the Hong Kong and Macao special administrative regions, in Taiwan, and overseas, and to all our friends around the world who have shown understanding and support for China’s modernization drive

Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and our country are founded and thrive. Our experience has taught us that, at the fundamental level, we owe the success of our Party and socialism with Chinese characteristics to the fact that Marxism works, particularly when it is adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of our times. The sound theoretical guidance of Marxism is the source from which our Party draws its firm belief and conviction and which enables our Party to seize the historical initiative.

Please feel free to share any of the links I have researched.. https://wakeupnz.org   Carol Sakey.

Once those poor sick bastards get over themselves we will be living in a much healthier country. I am referring to the Woke, the Cultural Marxism, Socialists in New Zealand as I refer to an article I read in Fightback magazine published by the Workers Party NZ. Of course I must add my personal opinion and point of view at the same time.

Published in Fightback magazine, the Workers Party NZ. That has a  far left Cultural Marxist Socialist  Communist agenda.  September 21^st 2015 published an article that referred to ‘A Maori Communist Perspective (Voices of Women and Gender Minorities). Authored by Huriana Kopeke-Te Aho. The content of the articles includes Maori political autonomy. That Marx clarifies the exploitative relationship underpinning the political and economic system of capitalism making references to themes including slavery and oppression the process of colonisation. Also stating that ‘through the act of change and transformation of our environment we change ourselves in the process’. That In Marx’s theory, capitalism creates and relies upon the construct of alienation. Well you can say that again during these last few years the state has certainly promoted and caused isolation and alienation, the destruction of the construction of family life, the working and social environment. However the Workers Party NZ support this with their Marxist Socialist narratives. Then Huriana Kopeke Te Aho the author of this article states that indigenous struggles are the artifacts of colonisation, being a Marxist theory.

Personally I question when are people going to stand up and speak up about this insane shite of divide and conquer, identity politics, the racial divide. Self determination belongs to each and every individual, and each and every individual is unique in their own right, one size does not fit one group. One size does not fit all. Cultural Marxism is about a class society, as in NZ Ardern’s leadership when she stated publicly “Yes we are living in a two tier society’. Now we live in Hipkins two tier society and every political cronie in the toilet bowl of Wellington are part of this promoting a two tier society. Crisis, Crisis, Crisis = Fear= Compliance= you have your jab you can go to the hairdressers, if you do not have your jab you cannot go to the hairdressers. New Zealand in a state of communism under a Socialist Cultural Marxist regime.

Also in the content of this ‘Fightback’ article ‘ authored by Huriana Kopeke Te Aho also refers to – Iwi have become the new elites (Rata 1997) and what was once a clear struggle between coloniser and colonised, has become further complicated with  the coloniser having a brown face as the economics of Treaty settlements are giving them license to look and act like capitalists and crown agents’ and then concludes  “It is the inevitability of the struggle for freedom from the shackles of the powerful that render Marx’s theory so powerful in indigenous human rights movements around the world”

IT’s important to note that this Socialist Marxist Communist published article in Fightback magazine does NOT represent the majority of those who have Maori blood running through their veins in NZ. And please note its those members of the Workers Party NZ that excuses those with Maori and Pacifica blood in their veins and brown skinned as being ‘White Supremacists’ in their crazy, insane woke ideas and their hatred of those that have the blood running through their veins of their forefathers namely the colonizers that the Socialist Marxists of NZ hate so much. Strangely them themselves too have 85% of that colonizer western blood running through their veins too. I really cannot imagine the struggles they must go through hating 85% of their identity, poor sick insane bastards don’t they realise that they will be much healthier if they just get over themselves. GOD SAVE NZ

LINK

Marxism and the Māori Sovereignty Movement – A Māori communist perspective (Voices of Women and Gender Minorities)