On his Headstone at Russell, the inscription begins: In memory of TAMATI WAKA NENE Chief of Ngapuhi.  The First to Welcome the Queen’s Sovereignty in New Zealand. A consistent supporter of the Pakeha.  This stone is erected by the Government of the Colony, which for upwards of 31 years he faithfully upheld. Sage in Counsel, Renowned in War.  He died regretted by all the inhabitants of these Islands at Russell on the 4th August 1871.

Some thoughts around the power of VETO

 VETO DANGER IN CO-GOVERNANCE   by Dr Kearney, a dual NZ and French citizen who was a UN civil servant in senior and director posts for 30 years.

 Have you noticed how rarely any co-governance discussion mentions or analyses the veto element of this issue?

 Certainly, recent articles have focused attention on the co-governance model advanced by the Labour Party, the Maori Caucus and their numerous Critical Race Theory-trained supporters. The common agenda of this group is to replace New Zealand’s democracy by a system of governance based on equity and ethnicity.

 Experts such as John Porter, Kerry Burke and Don Brash have written timely and comprehensive pieces on this subject.  As a result, people (still far too few) may have acquired a general understanding of the co-governance model proposed which is based on power-sharing with rights distributed according to ethnicity with appointed representatives and veto power for a specific minority only.

  Moreover, certain citizens may have recognized the clear distinction between co-management of a context-limited situation (such as a committee or a project) and a system of governance for the entire country, including control of its major assets (notably water and land).

 Nevertheless, knowledge often remains confused and sketchy, prompting both PM Hipkins and Opposition leader Luxon,to seek  further  clarification on the co-governance concept.

    But, due to infrequent references, it is possible that the veto issue could emerge as the least mentioned and the least well understood aspect of co-governance. Given its importance, this should ring alarm bells.

BACKGROUND:    Veto (meaning I forbid in Latin from the verb vetare) is the final power to unilaterally stop official action, especially in relation to legislation. More broadly, it means the power to    postpone, cancel, prevent, stop, block or influence official action.  So, holding a veto is a serious lever of power.

 Perhaps the best-known example is the veto held by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and attributed to recognize their respective action   to protect world freedom in World War 2. 

Ironically, in February 2022, Russia actually used its veto to stop the UN Security Council Resolution demanding that Moscow stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw its troops.  Another example is the veto held by heads of state,and famously by the American President. Monarchs once held this authority but that era has long gone. 

 Going right back to the origins of the veto in ancient Rome, this power – known as intercessio – was adopted by the Roman Republic in the 6th century BC to protect the interests of the plebeians (common citizenry) from the encroachments of the patricians, who dominated the Senate.

Veto was an essential component of the Roman conception of power being used not only to manage state affairs but also to moderate and restrict the power of the state’s high officials and institutions. Importantly, both tribunes and consuls held this power to ensure proper checks and balances in achieving policy objectives and social justice.

 Today, other terms such as prior consent, majority vote, exclusionary action,permanent  monitoring  or final review  can be used to denote  veto power.

Regarding the non legally-binding  UNDRIP Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 19 involving prior consent was one of the early concerns resulting in New  Zealand’s initial vote against  this legal instrument in 2007. When signature finally took place in 2010, the clear statement in Article 46 on the ultimate status of national sovereignty was considered a sufficient safeguard in case of internal dispute.  VETO POWER WITHIN THE CO-GOVERNANCE MODEL:   

Noting the veto’s origins and variations, considerable differences exist in the New Zealand model now proposed.  First, very few people even know about the veto aspect of co-governance or its significance because this is rarely mentioned by the media and politicians.  Whether negligent or deliberate, this helps fan the apathy of New Zealanders overall.with their dangerous ignorance  about cogovernance (and similar major policy issues)

Secondly, depending on the Act or on a specific administrative decision, different terms for final control can range from outright veto of a law or decision to monitoring authority,

exclusionary/punitive action or pressure exerted to embed or obtain a certain outcome, to ex post facto consultation with the public (which has little purpose when it is unlikely to undo action already taken by a Ministry).

In legislation, this diverse terminology is  illustrated by the Three Waters Act and its Amendment Bill; the creation of a separate Maori Health Authority; the pressure on local governments to create separate Maori wards;  re-writing  the  school history curriculum; the obligation on the Canterbury Regional Council to provide extra seats for the local tribe; the attempt to give Maori in Rotorua disproportionate votes on the local council;  the Hauraki Gulf governance  structure; the new RMA Bills and the installation of the new ‘refreshed’ secondary education curriculum without  prior consultation with the public. The list continues. 

While the veto has expanded its format, its basic power to control and obtain desired outcomes is unchanged. Thirdly and unlike the Roman model, veto power is not shared in any way between the two basic groups involved in co-governance. It is held by one group only – the Maori 17% minority – over the other multicultural 83% of the population.  Obviously, this crucial factor affects the distribution of power and its impact.

Lastly, and as historian John Robinson has explained, the He Puapua Report presents the end goal of this action by proposing a 2-chamber parliamentary model for New Zealand by 2040 guided by tikanga (customary Maori law).

 A general institution for all New Zealanders, the kawanatanga sphere would have strong Maori presence, so the nation can know and appreciate Iwi tribal boundaries. In addition, Maori would have their own, separate and powerful institution, the rangatiratanga sphere.  Here Iwi and hapu would agree and establish their governance structures with their authority recognized so that Tikanga Maori would apply and function across the country under Maori (national, iwi, hapu, whanau) control.

 It is proposed that Maori would have the right of final approval (i.e. a type of veto) over legislation passed by both chambers.  While aspirational at the moment, He Puapua could acquire more formal status very quickly as precedent grows.

Surely this goes beyond the boundaries of co-governance?   In effect, this becomes full governance.  In this case, co-governance would become a transitory period towards this new arrangement. This final objective is often evoked by eminent Maori such as Liz Brown, Deputy Assistant VC Maori, Canterbury University, in her submission to the Select Committee for the Canterbury Regional Council Bill, and Minister Jackson who has remarked that control of water assets is actual control of the country.

NEXT STEPS: It would seem PM Hipkins is now keen to start a conversation on this issue when possible. This might involve selected persons and groups – but how will he involve the NZ public who are most directly concerned? 

Moreover, Luxon has remarked that he does not see the need for a referendum which seems to further complicate the issue. So, would this discussion  be led by the Wellington power elite?  What could be the outcomes (apart from further spurious definitions of co-governance)?  In a democracy (currently New Zealand’s case), how can citizens (tax payers) best have their due say on this critical matter? This is their right.

It is truly astounding that no broad public debate has occurred on this subject since relevant action started including its glaring omission from the 2020 Labour manifesto. National’s 2021 Demand the Debate campaign was short lived.

As Chris Trotter rightly observed, the “consent of the governed “ is no longer considered an essential factor.  Politicians are guilty in this regard – but so is the apathetic public. With regret,one  must  conclude  that this debate is  definitely not wanted by our lawmakers.  Otherwise, it would have happened already. Citizens  i.e. the governed – should be very alarmed indeed by this and similar current trends.

The best option would be blanket repeal of all legislation since 2020 involving co-governance and its veto element.  That is to say: to admit that all Labour’s action since 2020 was an illjudged error and now best forgotten to preserve democracy and national unity. New Zealand must start over with a clean slate and common commitment to the principle that no veto power  can ever be held by  any specific group of citizens over their peers.  The very idea is abhorrent to New Zealand values.

To those who would object, the justification would be clear. All elected or list Labour MPs in the 2020 election failed to fully consult with citizens (who pay all parliamentary salaries) on this issue. This was gross overreach of power by the Labour Cabinet and its government. And, many of these same MPs intend to present themselves once again for high office.  This egregious step should be prevented. It is now urgent – and a matter of integrity – for all New Zealand lawmakers to demonstrate respect for their constituents.  Second -class (often dictatorial) performances and a lack of transparency to your paymasters are not acceptable.  Who has this courage to issue this challenge?  Maybe only NZ citizens themselves.

Finally, do remember to check out the actual design of the veto element in each law involving the process of co-governance.  Whatever its form, this element indicates a clear pathway from local  to national contexts towards a new governance system for New Zealand by 2040 .  This check will be a very instructive exercise regarding the current and future exercise of power in New Zealand, notably where the real political power is intended to lie.

What Would Help Maori Most

There is a lot of talk, especially around election time, about what Maori need.  The solutions offered are usually things like better access to education, better housing, more housing, better health care, better everything.

But none of these are the solutions.  Literally billions of dollars have been injected for decades into ‘the betterment’ of Maori but nothing has solved “the Maori problem”. Which is?

That on just about every measure of negative social indication, Maori get the gold medal – suicide, obesity, child poverty, child abuse, alcoholism, family violence, incarceration, violent crime, unemployment, welfare dependency.

So what is wrong? What the solution? What I am about to say does not just apply to Maori, but to all people in all cultures, right around the globe. But it particularly applies to Maori.

The solution has to do with the development of character.  This word is hardly ever talked about today, but it’s the ancient golden key to success in life, proven over time, tested, and trusted. 

Unlike “personality”, which is fixed from conception, “character” is developed. No one is born with character.  Character has to do with what’s on the inside of a person.  It’s their locus of control.

Character training starts in life by teaching children, and their parents if they don’t know, about the absolute connection between success in life, whatever path one chooses, and the development of character. 

Life is tough, a lot of the time, and when things get tough, and you don’t have character, it gets much much tougher. 

Hence the birth of the so called ‘disadvantaged’ class.  That is to say, when things get hard, really hard, and things start to go wrong, and you don’t have character to pull you out of a nose dive, you sink to the bottom. You crash and burn, and sometimes never recover.  Once at the bottom, you end up being labeled a  ‘disadvantaged person’.

But you are not really the disadvantaged.  Rather, you are someone who lacked character. The good news is that all is not lost for a person at the bottom.  Sometimes people who hit rock bottom have an ember of character in them, and they blow on that ember, and it can burst into flame, and they can recover.  But even the desire to blow on the ember, and fuel the fire, takes character.

So what is character?

“Character” can be defined as a cluster of internally driven skills, drivers, and attitudes such as:

• integrity,
• honesty,
• hard work,
• the ability to persevere when things are tough,
• the ability to solve problems,
• the ability to handle criticism and success,
• the ability to handle disappointment, and lots of it,
• to be self disciplined,
• the resolve to take personal responsibility for one’s health and wellness,
• the resolve to read and take courses on this and that and improve,
• the ability to plan and set goals, and the skills to achieve them, particularly financial and health goals,
• the desire to work hard, and work long hours when it’s necessary,
• the skills and commitment to look after a life partner and children and pour wisdom and support and encouragement into both,
• the discipline to look after property and possessions and maintain them,
• the ability to manage time and to prioritise,
• having the discipline to eliminate distractions like TV and other trivia, • to focus on growing the inner man or woman, or girl or boy,
• to put family first, to be a generous / giving person.
• to learn to be altruistic.
• And so on.

Here’s the thing – character transcends culture.  If you don’t have character, no matter what cultural group you belong to, life will destroy you.  It will push you to the bottom, fast.

People with character, deep character, obey the law, rise above their many problems, obey rules, respect authority, work hard, pay their taxes, love their families, contribute to society, and take responsibility.   They exhibit all the attitudes, drivers, and skills I have just listed.

When big big problems come to them, they overcome, even the ultimate problem which is death.  How so? They die victoriously, leaving a legacy of people all around them who they coached and nurtured in the art of character development.  Anyone who dies in this state, with this legacy, dies a worthy death.

In other words, people of character produce children who are the same as themselves. They become model citizens who contribute to the country much more than they take.

The police never visit them, and they rarely need hospital care.  They make a priority of educating themselves to the highest level possible.  They invest in their minds, and their health, and their families, and thus their futures.

Imagine the outcomes for a country where everyone was like that? A tiny police force, a tiny need for healthcare system, and a big tax take.

How does one achieve that?

By government implementing a deliberate and sustained character education initiative, starting at birth for children, and immediately for parents who don’t know all this.   Character acquisition is a life long pursuit.   No one ‘arrives’ with character development. They never “have it all”.  There is always room for growth.

Many parents have not had such education, so don’t know what they don’t know.  Thus they can’t pass onto their children the character skills their children will need to succeed in life.

Successive governments have, I think, unwittingly created the opposite – the characterless.

They have created a welfare state monster which is now insatiable.  They have created a group of people who have come to think of themselves as victims, not as victors.  Essentially, governments have given a growing number of people a ticket to give up on life, sent them a message that it is ok to be characterless, to let life beat you down.  Thus, when down and out, you receive your new name – you are “A Disadvantaged Person.”

The main concern of most governments, and most MPs, is re-election, or election, and not long term solutions.  Votes are their gods. 

Hence they offer voters money and incentives, lollies, rather than long term solutions.  Voters are themselves too stupid to resist.  So a dreadful vicious cycle is set in motion.

This cycle must eventually be broken if we want a prosperous and truly healthy country.

In this respect, most politicians are so utterly and shamefully shallow. They are self serving to the core.

Hence we have generations of deeply characterless people living in New Zealand who think that life is about what is owed them, and what they can get, rather than what they can give and contribute to society.

In this respect, Maori, generally speaking, get the gold medal.  In the Olympics of entitlement and victim hood, they stand highest on the dais.

The result? What we have now in New Zealand a heavy dependency on the state, and an ingrained entitlement and “I have been grieved” and “I demand compensation” attitude.  All cultures can suffer from this.

Successive governments who offer empty hollow and unsustainable ‘solutions’ for the disadvantaged, principally to win votes and buy themselves into power, who don’t address the root problems, and who don’t offer root solutions, are the problem. 

Make no mistake. Character is the golden key to success in life. Guaranteed.  It’s the golden key to a prosperous and radiant country.  What’s true for an individual is true for a community, and a country, and a world.

We could say that the health and prosperity of a nation is in direct proportion to the sum total of the depth of character, or otherwise, of each of its people.

Yet, no political party in New Zealand has ever talked in these terms. Ever.  Why is this? It could be that they don’t know about character.

Or they know about character but will not talk about it because it will not win votes.  If  the latter, then for sure, they think they possess character, but in reality they do not.  Why? Because one of the great marks of a man or a woman of character is this – they do the right thing, and say the right thing, regardless of the consequences.   This is how real leaders lead.

 They know what is right, and what is wrong, and they tell people the difference, even if they lose popularity in doing so, it does not matter to them.  They just go out and do what’s right, and say what’s right, irrespective of the consequences. That’s a real leader.

Plastic leaders, characterless leaders, on the other hand, focus on doing and saying what is popular.  What will win them votes. They don’t care if what they say is right or wrong, or what they do is right or wrong, they just want power.

Lack of character, at every level, has gotten this country into the mess it’s in now, and only character, at every level, will get us out.

Equality Vs Equal Outcomes.

I believe in equality of opportunity, but not in artificially creating equal outcomes.  Sure, there ought to be a level playing field, where everyone has the same chance of succeeding.  The rules should be the same for all.  The goal posts should be the same for everyone.

But as for equal outcomes? No.  

Why not? If a man or a woman works hard to develop their character, and they achieve great outcomes in life, this is a wonderful thing.  They will have earned their success. All power to them.  I applaud them.

But what of the man or woman who is lazy, who displays the traits of the characterless, and ends up with poor outcomes?  Who ends up being labeled ‘disadvantaged’?

Should we artificially compensate the man or woman with poor outcomes, gifting them money and resources, which have been generated and earned by the man with character, so that these two men, the characterful and the characterless, have equal outcomes?

No.  Absolutely not.  Why?

If we did that we would be rewarding bad character.  And what does that do? We teach that man that he can be rewarded for his bad character. 

This is absolutely the worst thing to teach any person.  It’s inhumane.  It’s abuse.

Why? We teach him to live a lie. To believe a lie. What lie? That he or she can succeed in life without character.

What then? He or she develops more bad character, and so we will push him or her into a downward spiral. 

For example, take the woman who figures out that having more illegitimate children can earn her a lot of money from the government.  That’s right, by establishing a system where she can see having illegitimate children as a career choice, we absolutely cause her demise, her destruction. 

She will quickly become a disadvantaged person. She will then model for her children how they too can become disadvantaged people. Hence generations of dependent people are birthed. It’s the same for a man who realises that not working and being on the dole is a wonderful thing.   He has children and he teaches them the same, and they all become disadvantaged too.

What happens next? He or she starts costing a lot of money to keep.  The hardworking people of character

have to keep him or her.  They have to pay to keep him or her alive and in comfort.  On the balance sheet, the characterless person becomes an ongoing loss, a liability. If a country is a ship, every characterless person is a leak. A leak on the financial health and prosperity of a country.  And if there are too many leaks, the ship sinks.

And no man, no woman, no country can prosper and flourish when it’s built on a lie. Why? Because when the storms of life come, and they will, that man, that woman, that country will sink.

Outcomes for an individual or a country are in direct proportion to character.  If a man or a woman has great character, they will achieve great outcomes.  If not, then poor outcomes. This is just how life works, and there is no point in arguing any other way.

It’s a law of life, like gravity.  This is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. And in the end, the truth always wins.

This, ultimately, is the solution for Maori i.e. they must take their focus off being:

• victims,
• and entitled,
• and dependent on hand outs and free stuff from the state.

They must take their minds off the supreme importance of:

• their culture and their language,
• and how important they are,
• and how everyone must respect and honour them,
• and how everyone must bow down to them,
• and how everyone must get their permission for this and that and the other thing.
• and how everyone must walk on egg shells when they are around them.

All this is making them characterless.

All this is moving Maori in entirely the wrong direction.  This has been going on for decades and it must stop.  Billions of dollars have been given to Maori over this time, and absolutely nothing has changed for Maori except for one thing – their character has gotten worse and worse.  Their status as the ‘disadvantaged’ people group has become entrenched.

Instead they must focus completely and entirely on the development of character in their people. 

It will take great humility for Maori to make such a change.  And here’s the thing – even humility is a character trait!

But if they do it, then and only then, will they break free, and as a people group begin to flourish and stand on their own two feet, like the rest of society.

——————–

Julian Batchelor, M.Ed (Hons) B.Th, Dip.T’ching. Founder, The Stop Co-Governance Movement, 2023.