Dear Chris,
In last Wednesday’s issue of The Independent, you argued that the violent racial riots in France over recent weeks offer “fiery proof that Don Brash’s ‘one law for all’ is an idea that time has passed by.” The introduction to your article suggested that you celebrated “the testing to destruction of the assimilationist project”.
As you know, I hold you in high regard and always find your articles stimulating, even when I do not agree with you. Your historical knowledge is unmatched by most political commentators.
But this time you are wrong!
To begin with, you have completely misunderstood what the National Party wants for New Zealand.
We certainly support “integration” – indeed, we have had a high degree of social and racial integration in New Zealand from the very beginning, which is surely obvious from the almost complete absence of anybody with only Maori ancestors – but we do not want “assimilation” if by that you mean the adoption by all New Zealanders of a single, homogeneous, “western” culture, without regard for other cultures or languages.
Rather, what I advocated in my Orewa speech in January last year was equal rights before the law for all New Zealanders so that everybody, regardless of race, sex, or religion, has the same right to vote, the same right to due process, the same right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the same right to good quality education and healthcare, and the same right to income support when in need.
I argued against giving special rights to Maori New Zealanders to be consulted in, for example, resource management issues.
I argued against requiring local authorities to consult with their communities and with iwi, as if iwi were somehow more entitled to be consulted than other members of the community.
I argued against separate electorates for those who choose to identify as Maori, noting that the creation of those separate electorates was intended as a purely temporary device in 1867 and made completely irrelevant with the advent of universal adult suffrage.
I argued against allowing local authorities to create new, racially-based, wards in local government.
I argued against allowing Maori New Zealanders to gain access to university medical courses with lower exam marks than required for other New Zealanders.
But the National Party has never had any problem with the idea of the taxpayer providing financial support for the maintenance of the Maori language and, because we specifically acknowledge the right of all parents to choose the kind of school their child attends, we have no problem in principle with taxpayer funding of Maori-language schools. Because we also want to see greater involvement of the private sector in the provision of healthcare, we have no problem in principle with taxpayer funding of Maori healthcare providers either.
This funding for Maori-language schools and Maori healthcare providers is not a “Treaty right” however: in our approach, it simply reflects our philosophy that all parents should have a right to choose the kind of school their child goes to (subject to certain basic standards being met) and a belief that private healthcare providers should be able to compete with public sector ones.
The National Party believes that there are some basic values which all New Zealanders should be willing to agree to, and I highlighted those above. Among other things, this means that it should be totally unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of race, or on the basis of gender. It should be totally unacceptable to require women to take a subservient position to men on government property, or on state occasions.
In my opinion, being a New Zealander probably also means having, or seeking to have, an ability to converse in English. This does not mean that only immigrants with a fluent grasp of English should be allowed to become citizens but it does mean that even schools which teach other languages should be required to teach English also.
This is partly because most countries find it very helpful to have a common language – in Singapore, for example, a country which has a number of languages represented in its four million people, it is mandatory for everybody to learn English – but also because a working knowledge of English is an enormous asset for people who need to earn income in the modern world.
But none of this means that other cultures should be denigrated or ignored. In the last month, I have participated in several functions celebrating the Hindu festival of Diwali, and one marking the end of the Muslim season of Ramadan. In late January, I hope to visit Ratana, to mark the anniversary of Wiremu Ratana’s birth. Within the next few months, I expect to be involved in celebrating the Chinese New Year.
And of course most of us will celebrate the Christian festival of Christmas next month.
I welcome our growing ability to acknowledge this cultural diversity and richness which is New Zealand in the 21st century.
But wait, I hear you object. Didn’t I deplore the use of the powhiri in official functions? Well, yes, I did say that I regretted that almost every official function seemed to be started with a Maori greeting or a full-blown powhiri. I have nothing against the Maori language, or against the use of the powhiri, and in some circumstances the use of both is entirely appropriate. But it is important that we don’t create the impression that there must be a powhiri on every official occasion, because that is to ignore the other important parts of our national heritage.
Do the serious riots in France have a lesson for New Zealand? I suspect they do, but it is not the lesson you draw.
To be sure, the French seem to be more inclined to violent protest than are the citizens of many other countries – witness the frequency with which France has had to endure violent protests by students, farmers, and truckies in recent decades.
But there is at least one other factor which is relevant. The French “social model” is based on appallingly rigid employment laws (which make it almost impossible to dismiss an employee) and one of the highest minimum wage rates anywhere. Little wonder that unemployment in France is now almost 9% of the workforce, and has barely been below that level for more than a decade.
Worse still, unemployment among young people in France is over 20%, while youth unemployment in the impoverished Muslim ghettoes which surround many of the large French cities is estimated to be close to 40%.
Freeing up France’s employment laws would, in the long-term, do more to reduce the violence in French cities than any number of additional troops.
So Chris, the violence in France certainly does nothing to persuade me that the National Party is wrong to believe in one law for all. On the contrary: we remain firmly committed to that principle, and to making it easier for employers and employees to agree on employment arrangements which suit them both: that is of enormous benefit not just to employers, but also to those on the margins of the workforce who find it difficult or impossible to get a job when labour laws are rigid.
Copyright © 2024 Don Brash.