Labour 'Newspeak' over Treaty

Wednesday 28 Jan 2004 Stephen Franks Press Releases -- Treaty of Waitangi & Maori Affairs

George Orwell would envy Helen Clark and Dr Michael Cullen's gall in calling Dr Brash's honesty `racial divisiveness', ACT New Zealand Maori Affairs Spokesman Stephen Franks said today.

"When they describe anti-racism as racism, they've reversed the notions of `goodness' and `badness' as Orwell predicted. He described their morality perfectly - they are his Ministry of Truth in charge of lies. Their official `Newspeak' makes words mean the opposite of their existing meanings," Mr Franks said.

"New Zealanders don't want to be divided into two tribes: Maori and pakeha. ACT will support National's timetable for ending race discrimination. We assure New Zealanders they will be treated the same - without distinction on the basis of ethnic origin or skin colour.

"Ms Clark and Dr Cullen call this `driving the people apart'. To the Greens, it is the `dangerous path of racial division'. They are all intellectually contemptible - unless you are an Orwellian, in which case they are high achievers.

"New Zealanders in workplaces, pubs, and living rooms will be asking:

· How does Dr Brash's promise that the law will reflect New Zealand as `one country with many people' and `end racial distinctions in legislation', translate to `a tailspin on the politics of race', breaching a duty `to bring people together, not drive them apart'?

· Is it `whipping up racial division' and chasing `votes on an anti-Maori, anti-Treaty settlement' or signalling that `National has given up on ever being representative of mainstream New Zealand'? Clark and Cullen claim one, Tamihere the other. Either National is chasing votes, or alienating them. Or just calling a spade a spade?

· Why does Labour use the Treaty to justify separate privileges for Maori, and political rights that override one person one vote democracy if it is "about bringing us together, not breaking us apart" as John Tamihere claims?

· Exactly how does Labour's vision for the Treaty "bring us together" if it can't be under one law which does not discriminate on the grounds of race or ethnic inheritance?

· What is Labour's vision for its Treaty-dominated future? Will special privileges and legal rights ever end? Who is and who will be a Maori to exercise these privileges?

· Why has Labour ignored the duty to set sunset dates for legalised discrimination under the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Racial Discrimination?

· Why has Dr Cullen threatened New Zealanders with a damaging response "in the international court" if we implement the Brash future for the Treaty as a launching pad, but not a blueprint for the future. What courts did he mean? Is Labour glad to subordinate our sovereignty and renounce our right to get rid of all race-based law?

· Dr Cullen says National is "hopelessly muddled about" Labour's seabed and foreshore proposals. Why didn't his package say what customary titles will give and rule out `the development of a commercial activity or a power of veto over new resource usages' for Maori?

National is reasserting leadership. The Labour/Green hysterical Newspeak is the strongest positive sign for New Zealand since the Court of Appeal's disastrous excursion into lawmaking on 19 June 2003. They see the writing on the wall," Mr Franks said.

For more information visit ACT online at http://www.act.org.nz or contact the ACT Parliamentary Office at act@parliament.govt.nz.

© Scoop Media