Peter Dunne: Treaty should make way for common sense

COMMENT

Don Brash has said what middle New Zealand had been afraid to say.

Stung by strong public support for his utterances, the Government has announced a series of abrupt U-turns, hoping to soothe some of the tensions that had arisen.

The Government's own polling was no doubt telling it what most other New Zealanders already knew; Dr Brash's ringing of the warning bell was a wake-up call to a quickly crustifying Administration.

So Dr Brash has identified the problem, but beyond all the hype has he really provided an answer? No, because all the slogan "need not race" has so far told us is that something is wrong.

Dr Brash argues that Treaty of Waitangi clauses need to be taken out of legislation, health-funding formulas need to have the ethnic component taken out of them, and Maori quotas need to be removed as soft passes into otherwise tough tertiary courses.

And he's right, they do. But does he really offer a solution to the fundamental issue that gave rise to these biases in the first place, the issue that lies at the heart of our race-relations dilemma?

Has he in any real way addressed the fundamental issue of the proper place of the treaty and whether we should accept its so-called principles that keep appearing?

I think not. Dr Brash has merely complained about some of the symptoms we all feel.

So far New Zealanders have been offered little real choice on race relations.

On the one hand is a wholehearted acceptance of the trendy left's view of a "living treaty", its principles (as handed down by the Court of Appeal with little popular consultation or consent) extending far and wide, to be abided by at all times, no matter how ludicrous the consequence.

On the other hand, we are offered an utter repudiation of the first view that says we have no obligation to Maori other than the redress of historical land grievances. As for the fact that they're at the bottom of every social statistic and barely any speak their own language any more, that's their fault.

One admirable quality of most New Zealanders is their innate sense of fair-mindedness. We recognise Maori have suffered historically, yet our tolerance for the present over-the-top politically correct implementation of the treaty has expired. But while one side offers continued separatism and the other offers an ethnic and social underclass, how can there be any fair-minded alternative to a debate in which the choices presented are so highly polarised?

There can be. The Government and many grievance-industry lawyers constantly love to remind us that the treaty is our founding document.

The only way we can put the past behind us and move forward is to write a new founding document. Not one that provides the rules by which two races can co-exist but one that expresses the ideals that all New Zealanders can identify with.

It's called a constitution, and we need one. Who decided that the treaty should be the foundation of modern New Zealand? By all accounts, it isn't working, is it?

A six-point plan released by United Future on race relations agrees that Maori should no longer receive special treatment, and calls for the establishment of a new national day instead of the sham that is Waitangi Day.

The day we, as a country, ratify our own constitution cementing our status as a small but independent nation would be a proud day.

We need a constitution and that is why United Future also called for a royal commission into our constitutional arrangements, including the treaty and its principles.

If we undertook such a process, ordinary New Zealanders could help develop the way forward.

It wouldn't be the courts or treaty-industry lawyers imposing their raft of treaty principles upon us. It definitely wouldn't be the divisive political rhetoric that would leave many behind. It would be the people.

It wouldn't solve our problems overnight. But it would provide a mechanism to work through them and move forward, rather than a climate in which racial conflict appears never-ending.

Many Maori may shudder at the thought of the treaty losing its pre-eminent status. But the common sense and fair-mindedness of most New Zealanders, as well as input from Maori, would result in an equitable outcome.

It could be one that acknowledged our past, but, most importantly, it would be an outcome that looks forward and provides for our future.

Earlier this year I noted how the Prime Minister had been criticised for failing properly to articulate or spread her Government's view about the proper role of the treaty and the future relationship between Maori and Pakeha.

We are seeing the consequences of that failure. In lieu of her rhetorical reticence, Dr Brash has willingly stepped into the gap.

The problem is that all he has told us is what we don't want, what we're scared of, and what we're angry about.

That is why we must begin an open and inclusive inquiry that leads to the construction of a new constitution - a constitution that incorporates those important relationships and issues of the past but that looks to, and provides for, our future, together.