O’Regan’s Nazi sympathiser remark sparks complaint
PRESS STATEMENT - immediate release
O’Regan’s Nazi sympathiser remark sparks complaint
Dismay at Sir Tipene O’Regan’s “Nazi sympathiser” remark last week prompted the Independent Constitutional Review Panel to write an open letter to Deputy Prime Minister Bill English (copy attached).
Sir Tipene, the co-chair of the official Constitutional Advisory Panel grouped, lumped together “those who wish to reverse Maori influence” with “extremist groups” and “Nazi sympathisers”, in a recent speech in Dunedin marking the Maori New Year.
David Round, who chairs the independent panel, said that members of the government’s advisory group were required to be “seen as fair and open to a range of views”.
“Yet here is the panel’s co-chair announcing that all those opposing continued further Maori influence are next door to Nazi sympathisers,” Mr Round said.
“O’Regan’s ‘extremists’ were simply ordinary decent New Zealanders whose opinions have the misfortune to differ from those of the panel’s co-chair and not a few of his colleagues, who therefore intend to dismiss them without a moment’s consideration,” he said.
“And for him to refer to supposed public submissions available to no-one else in order to pursue a political programme would not be tolerated if done by anyone else,” Mr Round said.
The Constitutional Advisory Panel has just extended its period for public submissions until the end of July, in order, according to Sir Tipene, to “take the pulse of middle New Zealand”.
Mr Round said: “This is what the panel has been supposed to be doing all this year.”
Sir Tipene’s call for “serious-minded” people to make submissions to the panel “was a dog-whistle call for people who agreed with him,” Mr Round said. “Clearly there haven’t been enough so far.”
Mr Round said that that contemptuous attitude was no more than could be expected from “someone who also warned of New Zealand remaining ‘another little Anglo leftover’ if it did not advance Maori in its constitution”.
“Gratuitous insults to one of our great blessings, our British constitutional inheritance, are public announcements of the panel’s own radical agenda,” Mr Round said.
The independent panel’s other members are professors Martin Devlin, Elizabeth Rata and James Allan, Dr Muriel Newman and Mike Butler.
Open Letter:
Monday 24th June 2013
The Hon. Bill English,
Deputy
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
b.english@ministers.govt.nz
Dear Mr English,
We write this open letter to you to express our dismay at recent remarks by Sir Tipene O’Regan, the co-chair of your government’s Constitutional Advisory Panel, as reported in the Otago Daily Times, and to ask what your attitude can be to an official panel which displays the predetermination and partiality which a good number of panel members clearly hold.
We are members of the Independent Constitutional Review Panel. We are private citizens who, in the absence of any other obvious person willing to take the job on, have joined together to raise public awareness of the dangers which the Maori Party’s agenda for the C.A.P. pose for our country’s future, and to lead public debate on a vital issue which desperately requires it. Our political backgrounds are various but mainstream. All of us have taken a well-informed interest in Treaty debates for many years. We receive no government recognition or support; all our work is funded by the donations of ordinary New Zealanders who share our fears.
You will probably be aware of our concerns hitherto about the C.A.P. We list them briefly, but we are happy to expound at greater length in future correspondence.
(a) The Panel’s very terms of reference
require the Panel to make its inquiry ‘in ways that
reflect the Treaty relationship’ and ‘in ways that
reflect the partnership model and are responsive to Maori
consultation preferences’. This predetermines the result
by taking an entirely unfounded radical assumption about
what the Treaty means as a given and as the starting point
in any discussion.
(b) The C.A.P.’s carefully balanced
racial composition again presumes what the Panel is supposed
to be asking about, a 50:50 ‘partnership’ of two races
with equal power, and thereby an end to equality of
citizenship. Its composition along such racial lines ~ five
Maori, five European New Zealanders, one of Pasifika descent
and one of Chinese ~ forces us to wonder if such a division
into racial castes is expected to be an increasingly
prominent part of our national life.
(c) Many of the
appointed members of the panel clearly already hold strongly
decided opinions from which they are unlikely ever to
resile. Professor Ranginui Walker, most obviously, has long
been prominent as an extreme advocate of some sort of Maori
sovereignty, and Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Drs
Leonie Pihama and Hinuriwa Potu seem, with respect, to be
shorter on constitutional wisdom than on far-reaching
radical understandings of the Treaty. Sir Tipene O’Regan
is a moderate voice only when judged against radical Maori
ones, as will be illustrated below. It is impossible to
imagine any of these people having an open-minded approach
to the subject.
(d) The Maori Party, which as your
government partner would seem to have had some hand in the
Panel’s selection, has as its ultimate goal ‘to ensure
that the Treaty of Waitangi is given proper recognition and
that constitutional arrangements in New Zealand allow for
full engagement and recognition by tangata whenua’. Dr
Sharples expressed similar sentiments when the Review was
first announced. There is a clear implication that nothing
like that is the case now.
(e) Of the European members,
Sir Michael Cullen’s long career as a Minister of Treaty
Negotiations and his current position as principal Treaty
claims negotiator for Tuwharetoa must inevitably undermine
public perception of him as some one who could be expected
to argue as vigorously for the interests of his race as the
Maori appointees will be arguing for theirs. Most of the
other European appointees can, whatever their particular
competences, only be regarded indifferently at best.
Professor John Burrows would be the only exception, but not
for any longstanding expertise he has in this particular
area. Deborah Coddington has recently publicly accepted the
Treaty of Waitangi as our ‘founding document’ which
should therefore be guiding discussions. Sir Michael Cullen
has already described the I.C.R.P.’s fears as those of
‘extremists’ and ‘paranoid’ ‘conspiracy
theorists’.
(f) At the very least, if such panellists
as Professor Ranginui Walker were to be appointed, it would
be only fair that one of the considerable and growing number
of those expressing doubts about where the Treaty industry
is leading New Zealand should also have been appointed.
(g) In any case, we would have thought that there
existed an ample pool of informed and fair-minded New
Zealanders, Maori and European, without having to choose so
obviously interested and compromised parties among your
official panellists. The ones chosen do your government no
credit.
(h) All of these remarks about the C.A.P.’s
membership must be understood in the light of the Cabinet
Minute of the 18th of April 2011. That minute approved a
panel with a maximum number of ten members, including two
co-chairs, rather than the current twelve members. (We
wonder how the unauthorised extra two members appeared, and
why.) The Cabinet’s criteria for membership of the panel
(paragraphs 11 – 14 of the Minute) described members who
should be ‘representative of wider New Zealand society’,
‘able to relate to a
wide range of New Zealanders’,
‘have expertise and specialist skills such as an
academic understanding of constitutional matters, community
relations [and] journalism’ and ‘are seen as fair, open
to a range of views and with no conflict of interest’.
Many of the C.A.P.’s current membership fail to meet most
of those criteria, and particularly the last. Even John
Burrows’ academic background is not at all in
constitutional law.
(i) The C.A.P.’s discussion
document, New Zealand’s Constitution, The
Conversation So Far, published in September last
year, is grossly slanted towards radical Treaty
interpretations. (A full critique of the document appears as
a chapter in Twisting the Treaty, A Tribal Grab for
Wealth and Power, recently published by Tross
Publishing.)
(j) The amount of money allocated to public
consultation was never enough to make genuine consultation
possible. There was therefore an excellent excuse for
preferring to reach out to interest groups likely to be
sympathetic to the Panel’s agenda. Consultation with Maori
has certainly been extensive, but a recent poll showed that
only one third of New Zealanders had even heard of the
panel’s existence, and the only thing that has happened
since then to make them more aware has been the
advertisements inserted in newspapers by the I.C.R.P.
(k) The C.A.P. has even gone so far as to meet at least
twice with members of the Iwi Leaders Constitutional Working
Group, a self-appointed group like our own with no more
standing than our own. Although Professor Rata and David
Round have been able to have some very perfunctory input
into the C.A.P.’s resource base, there has been nothing
more, and certainly no attempt to engage with the I.C.R.P.
as an entity.
Taking all of these things together, we consider ourselves entitled to fear that the Panel’s recommendations will be unacceptable to most New Zealanders, who are thereby in danger of having unwanted and racially divisive constitutional change imposed on them unilaterally.
We are now concerned to read in the Otago Daily Times a report of a speech which Sir Tipene O’Regan, the C.A.P.’s co-chair, recently gave at a ‘matariki breakfast’ at the Otago Early Settlers Museum. The report reads in part:
‘Sir Tipene is keen to ‘take the pulse of middle new Zealand’ over key constitutional issues…The Panel wanted to hear from ‘individuals and groups of serious-minded people’….Some extremist groups had already been quick to offer their thoughts, including Nazi sympathisers and some who wish to reverse Maori influence in this country and seemingly wanted to remove every trace of Maoridom. He asked if they also wished to ‘black out in some way’ the koru pattern on the tail of Air New Zealand aircraft. Removing that Maori flavour would leave New Zealanders as ‘just another little Anglo leftover’ stuck at the bottom of the Pacific….Some issues were
more difficult to discuss because civics education was no longer offered in New Zealand schools but the panel was providing its own background materials to stimulate discussion. Civic education had seemingly rivalled sex education as a ‘major phobia’ in some quarters, with teachers viewed as ‘lefties’ who could not be trusted to teach it.’
We make the following comments:
(a)
The C.A.P.’s period of public consultation, now extended
until the end of July, was originally due to end at the end
of this month, so it is a bit late for the Panel now to be
starting to ‘take the pulse of middle New Zealand’.
Unless we have misunderstood something, that is what the
Panel was supposed to have been doing all along. At the very
least, then, this statement is an admission that the Panel
has hitherto failed in its duty of public consultation.
Given the circumstances outlined above, we cannot see how
one month more will make any difference.
(b) In his
‘extremist groups’ Sir Tipene includes groups who
‘wish to reverse Maori influence in this country’. There
is certainly a proportion of the population who believes
that Maori influence in government and legal and political
arrangements is rapidly heading out of control, but they are
not extremists. They are a majority of citizens, who believe
in racial equality in a colour-blind democratic state. Those
who do not are the extremists.
(c) We very much doubt
that anyone disagreeing with Sir Tipene has been ‘quick’
to make submissions. For the reasons outlined above, the
Panel has operated just underneath the public radar, in the
hope that it will be able to have just as much engagement as
will enable it to claim some sort of ‘informed
consensus’ while avoiding the undesired unpleasantness of
listening to what the public actually thinks. Such genuine
popular involvement as there has been has been despite the
C.A.P.’s silence and, if anything, because of the modest
efforts of the I.C.R.P. We cannot but cynically interpret
Sir Tipene’s hope that ‘serious-minded’ individuals
and groups would get involved as a dog-whistle to his own
sympathisers to produce submissions in numbers sufficient to
outweigh an unexpected number of submissions from the
concerned general public. Those who disagree with him he
clearly would not consider ‘serious-minded’.
(d)
We will have to take Sir Tipene’s word for it that ‘Nazi
sympathisers’ have been making submissions. If they have,
then that is of course no more than their democratic right,
and however much we might disagree with them we have to
respect their rights as citizens to do so. We will be
interested to examine all the public submissions and see if
we can find all these Nazi-ish submissions. But in any case,
lumping together in one sentence ‘extremists’, ‘Nazi
sympathisers’ and those unhappy about the continued
Maorification of our country clearly reveals a predetermined
view that anything less than continued further Maori
influence is extremist and may be dismissed without further
consideration.
(e) There would be very few people in
New Zealand, and we certainly do not know any of them, who
‘wish to remove every trace of Maoridom’. Talk of that
is a very shabby straw man. Nor is that the issue here; the
Panel’s task is to consider constitutional arrangements,
not culture. That is an entirely different thing; and
indeed, Maori culture seems to be managing perfectly well
without the need for further legislative enforcement.
(f)
Sir Tipene in his speech made reference to particular
(alleged) submissions. If he is going to do that, then it is
the C.A.P.’s clear obligation now to make all submissions
available to the public by electronic means. That is
extremely simple to do, and in any case no more than the
panel’s simple duty. Submissions on the MMP review were
made available for all to read on the Electoral
Commission’s website as soon as they were received. If
this ‘constitutional conversation’ is indeed an open
one, as the C.A.P. alleges, then what people are saying
should be openly available also. We therefore request that
you ensure that all public submissions to the C.A.P. are
made available as soon as they are received. Presumably the
Panel already sorts and organises all submissions as it
receives them, and places them on some sort of electronic
register. A failure to do that would be a gross
inefficiency; but if it is done, then it would be a simple
thing to make that register publicly available.
(g) It
is completely unacceptable for a co-chair to leak or refer
to just selected items from (alleged) submissions for his
own political purposes unless public access to those
submissions is available to all. We doubt that it would be
acceptable if many other chairs of committees were to adopt
this as a general practice.
(h) No-one that we know of
is ‘seeking to remove that Maori flavour’ from our
country, and the suggestion that there is such a movement
both misrepresents opposition to the official panel’s
agenda and misunderstands the C.A.P.’s official purpose.
To suggest that opponents of the Panel’s political agenda
would leave New Zealand as ‘“just another little Anglo
leftover” stuck at the bottom of the Pacific’ again
misrepresents that opposition and also displays a contempt
for our British constitutional inheritance which sits very
ill on the shoulders of the co-chair of a constitutional
advisory panel.
(i) The last two sentences appear to
defend the right of school-teachers perceived as
‘lefties’ to indoctrinate children with their own
political views on the Treaty. This does not suggest that
Sir Tipene and his panel will be very concerned that Treaty
‘education’ will be properly fair and impartial. Nor do
we do not see that it is any part of any school-teacher’s
role so to propagandise. Parents have every right to object
to such propaganda. It is little less than an intellectual
form of child abuse, however much Sir Tipene and his cohorts
may support it.
Certainly, the report of your Constitutional Advisory Panel has not yet been prepared and presented. Nevertheless by the clear indications the public has seen so far the chances seem high that it will not be worth the paper that it is printed on. Anything less than a radical departure from our present democratic and egalitarian principles will not satisfy the radical desires of some panellists and their increasingly truculent supporters. We have to say that we consider it most unfortunate that your government established this Panel in the first place, for its direction has been obvious from the start, and whatever its recommendations they will only further inflame racial animosities. Radical race-based innovations would be an anathema to most New Zealanders; now the matter has been raised, nothing less than such innovations will satisfy radical Maoridom, who will consider any failure of this inquiry to deliver on their ambitions to be yet another injustice visited upon them by the wicked colonising oppressor. You have created a problem where one did not exist before.
Be that as it may, that damage is done, and it would be unrealistic to ask you to end the operations of this appalling committee. We do ask, however, that you note our concerns. More particularly, we ask whether you find the statements and attitude of Sir Tipene O’Regan appropriate to the chair of a government-appointed panel presumably hoping to make some claim to integrity and fairness. The Cabinet Minute requires members who are seen as fair, open to a range of views and with no conflict of interest. We cannot see that Sir Tipene fulfils those criteria. The Cabinet Minute particularly specifies that although the Maori co-chair is ‘responsible for ensuring an appropriate process is used to consult with Maori’, he is not ‘responsible for reflecting a particular Maori perspective’. Does the government find Sir Tipene’s attitude acceptable in a co-chair? Is his partiality to be an accepted benchmark for the conduct of future government-supported inquiries?
We also ask you to indicate, in general terms, what your government’s attitude would be to recommendations, whatever their tenor, coming from a Panel run as partially as this one is. Would your government be inclined to approach such recommendations with caution? Or do you find no cause for disquiet in the Panel’s proceedings and attitudes?
Finally, at the time you and Dr Sharples first announced the constitutional review, you stated that any constitutional change would ‘not be undertaken lightly and would require either broad cross-party support or the majority support of voters in a referendum’. We note that you say ‘or’ a referendum, leaving open the possibility that there might be significant constitutional change merely by Act of Parliament. We do not hesitate to say that that would be completely unacceptable to most New Zealanders. A recent poll indicated 79% public support for a referendum as indispensible to constitutional change, with only 13% considering that the decision should be by Parliament alone. We would add that approval by a mere 50% majority is quite inadequate; a higher threshold would be essential to ensure that substantial elements of our communities do not consider themselves strangers to their own institutions and with no commitment to innovations. Given the momentous consequences any change in our constitutional arrangements would inevitably entail, we feel entitled to ask you for a firm assurance that your government would not allow any such change to proceed without substantial popular support in a binding referendum. Nothing less will satisfy legitimate public concern.
Yours sincerely
David Round (Chair, Independent Constitutional Review Panel)
For and on behalf of
Professor Elizabeth Rata
Emeritus Professor Martin Devlin
Professor James Allan, Garrick Professor of Law, University of Queensland (formerly of the Faculty of Law, University of Otago)
Dr Muriel Newman
Michael Butler
(Members, Independent Constitutional Review Panel)
ENDS