By Roger Childs

Continuing bias in the mainstream media

Throughout the term of the Labour government and particularly since the 2023 election campaign began, The Post and fellow Stuff papers have pushed hard for the Left to prevail yesterday. The political writers, some columnists and most cartoonists have shown a strong bias towards Chris Hipkins and hjs allies. This has been obvious in–

• Their blatant sympathy towards Labour polices
• denigrating National’s leaders and policies
• casting doubt on National’s tax policy without analysis
• making snide remarks about Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party
• featuring full page advertisements from Labour, including Chris Hipkins dominating the cover of The Post two days in a row. 

The sad business of race-baiting

This was the title of a feature “Insight” article on the Tuesday before the final day of voting. The author Phillip Matthews was not identified in the usual way, and his writing was a mish-mash of bias half-truths, incorrect history and highly selective argument without evidence.

His basic message was that the Centre-Right parties, especially ACT and New Zealand First, have been critical of Maori “having a seat at the table” in the post-election government. Not once did he use the words democracy or equity, however, racist does feature. Equality features only once when he suggests bizarrely that Maori don’t have political equality.

No-one supports attacking people on the basis of their ethnicity – Jews, Muslims, Samoans, Tongans or part-Maori — however, Matthews is at pains to find examples of part-Maori being targeted in the election campaign. He never mentions that the Maori elites, educationalists and journalist are, like political leaders David Seymour and Winston Peters, predominantly descended from colonists with some Polynesian blood. 

Like the rest of us they are all New Zealanders of mixed ancestry.

Matthews’ evidence

There will be always be a small minority of bigots who attack people’s ancestry. Matthews picks out New Zealand First Rangitata candidate Rob Ballantyne, for his “racist” comments, and some attacks on Hana-Rawhiti – Maipi-Clarke, a Te Pati Maori candidate. She claims that these have happened “… because I’m young, I’m female and I’m Maori”. 

Te Pati Maori president John Tamihere argues without evidence, that Maipi-Clarke was threatened because “… National and ACT’s race-baiting has empowered and emboldened a dangerous type of human being who is hell-bent on silencing Maori by targeting who they think is our most vulnerable.” If he is right this is utterly unacceptable, but how many people is he talking about?

Confused about ACT’s Treaty referendum proposal and the country’s history 

There were no principles in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi but many politicians and groups keep talking about them.  ACT wants legislation to create three “Principles of the Treaty”  

1. All citizens of New Zealand have the same political rights and duties
2. All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot
3. New Zealand is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy where discrimination based on ethnicity is illegal.

These are democratic proposals and in line with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights on equality which New Zealand signed up to in 1948. Hipkins says the legislation would “undo decades of progress and decades of legal precedent”, Nothing specific here – what progress and precedent is he referring to? 

Matthews criticized the ACT proposals for making no mention of Maori or the Crown or hapu or iwi. But Article 1 includes “All citizens of New Zealand” – no-one is excluded, and equality and democracy are the bottom lines. Any problem with that?

As far as Matthews is concerned, what Hipkins said about our history is right and Luxon is wrong. For example he quotes Luxon from 2022 saying that “Maori ceded sovereignty when the Treaty was signed.” The National leader is right – that was done in Article 1. But Matthews claims that view is “controversial “not supported by the Waitangi Tribunal”. The simple truth is that the Tribunal is wrong and doesn’t even use the only valid Treaty, signed in 1840, in its judgements.

Two separate groups in the one country

Unfortunately despite all the citizens of the country being New Zealanders using the same services, facilities and amenities, Matthews sees the undemocratic divisiveness that now exists between “Maori” and the vast majority of other people continuing. He says, “These Maori political authorities will continue to fight to be able to self-determine for the people they represent in much the same way any large extended family will fight for the interests of their people”.

He goes on to say that’s opposition to Maori having a seat at the table is sad “where for the first time in 200 years Maori are being able to deliver services and deliver progress to their people and the Crown hasn’t done that”. Again he sees Maori as being separate and makes no reference to the huge amount of special provisions, legislation, services and rights made by successive governments for over more than 50 years.

Matthews is another Legacy Media writer who wants the present separatism to not only continue but be extended. He’s going to have to wait at least another 3 years before a Labour, Green, Maori Party Coalition Government would do that.