Cook Islands' Christian nation proposal rejected
By
Rashneel Kumar
, Cook Islands News
The proposed amendment sought to have the Cook Islands recognised as a Christian nation and to prohibit the introduction of non-Christian religions.
Photo:
RNZ Pacific / Eleisha Foon
The proposed constitutional amendment to declare the Cook Islands a Christian nation has been rejected by a parliamentary committee, which deemed it discriminatory and a violation of fundamental human rights, and further recommended the repeal of the Religious Organisations Restrictions Act.
Foreign Minister Tingika Elikana, chair of the Special Select Committee on Religious Organisations - established last year to address the ongoing debate on religious organisations - presented its report to Parliament yesterday.
The proposed amendment sought to have the Cook Islands recognised as a Christian nation and to prohibit the introduction of non-Christian religions.
According to the report, the Committee, after considering the arguments on both sides and the current legal framework, believes that the proposed amendment to recognise the Cook Islands as a Christian nation infringes upon fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion and speech, set out in Article 64 of the Constitution. Furthermore, it could lead to discrimination against non-Christian faiths, the report stated.
Foreign Minister Tingika Elikana and chair of the Special Select Committee on Religious Organisations. (file image)
Photo:
Johnny Blades / VNP
The Committee believes that the Preamble of the Constitution sufficiently captures, among other important matters, the significance of Christian principles in the Cook Islands.
The Preamble to the Constitution reads: "In the Holy Name of God, The Almighty, The Everloving, And The Everlasting. We, the people of the Cook Islands, recognising the heritage of Christian principles, Cook Islands Custom, and the rule of law, remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day, being the that day of the week which, according to a person's belief and conscience, is the Sabbath of the Lord."
In its report, the Committee agreed with the Cook Islands Law Society that the rule of law requires that laws are applied fairly, equally and without discrimination to all individuals within a jurisdiction.
"The Committee is compelled to adopt measures that uphold inclusivity, equality, and fundamental freedoms, ensuring alignment with both domestic and international standards," the report said.
"The Committee therefore rejects the proposed amendments to the Constitution: i. It infringes Article 64 of the Constitution; ii. The Preamble of the Constitution sufficiently captures the importance of Christian principles in the Cook Islands."
The Committee also concluded that the Religious Organisations Restrictions Act (RORA), which restricts the establishment of religious organisations in the Cook Islands, is "unconstitutional and should be repealed".
The Committee agreed with the submissions of the Law Society, which is summarised below.
The RORA:
The above restrictions do not apply to the Cook Islands Christian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and any organisation or association approved by the Minister of Justice.
According to the Committee, the four Churches listed in the RORA are all of Christian denomination, adding "RORA effectively prohibits the practice of any non-Christian religion or faith in the Cook Islands".
The Committee stated prima facie, the RORA offends against fundamental human rights by:
The Committee said the RORA contradicts Article 64 of the Constitution by effectively creating a legislative prohibition on all non-Christian faiths, and even Christian faiths other than the four named in the Act, and treats unequally persons of different faiths, discriminating against and marginalising people of non-Christian faith. It also offends against the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of speech and expression and the freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
"For the above reasons, the restrictions imposed by the RORA are overtly unconstitutional. The RORA's provisions explicitly discriminate against unapproved religions, violating principles of non-discrimination.
"Restricting religious practices must be proportional to legitimate public interests. The RORA's blanket restrictions exceed what is necessary to protect public safety or order."
The Committee also said Article 64(2) of the Constitution permits limitations to Constitutional rights in the interest of protecting the rights and freedoms of others or in the interests of public safety, order, or morals, the general welfare, or the security of the Cook Islands. Any such limitation must meet the proportionality test under Article 65(2).
"The Committee agrees that the RORA fails the proportionality test. As such, there are no grounds on which the RORA could be deemed consistent with the Constitution on the basis of morality. As such, the RORA is unconstitutional and should be repealed."
According to the Committee, the Religious Advisory Council (RAC), which not only made written submissions to the Committee but also appeared before the Committee, has been "mistakenly" accepted as having an advisory role in several matters, such as church, immigration, seabed mining, etc.
"However, the problem is that RAC is not a legally incorporated body and therefore, has no formal or legal status."
The Committee recommends that the Minister responsible for the RORA take the necessary steps to:
Members of the Special Select Committee also included MP Rakahanga and Opposition Leader Tina Pupuke-Browne, MP Matavera Vaitoti Tupa, MP Ruaau Timi Tunui Varu, Deputy Prime Minister and Ruatonga-Avatiu-Palmerston-Panama-Atupa MP Albert Nicholas, MP Amuri-Ureia Toanui Isamaela, and MP Arutanga-Reureu-Nikaupara Tereapii Maki-Kavana.
-This article was first published by
Cook Islands News
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
36 minutes ago
- Scoop
On Free Speech And Anti-Semitism
For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. According to Workplace Health and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden, employers are having to endure a 'culture of fear' created by Worksafe, which has the power to prosecute them if if they are operating unsafe workplaces. There seems to be only anecdotal evidence – from employers at a government roadshow – that Worksafe has ever used its powers indiscriminately, or that good employers need to worry about a visit by the labour inspectorate. Regardless, and despite New Zealand's terrible track record of workplace-related deaths, injuries and illnesses – demonstrably worse than in the UK or Australia – it is going to be made harder in future to find anyone criminally liable. As we did before in the early 1990s, an already underfunded enforcement regime is going to be turned back towards one of voluntary compliance by employers, who will be advised on how to put into practice the codes of conduct that they have been invited to write. Worksafe is being told to prioritise this 'advice' and 'guidance' role. Van Velden also indicated to Jack Tame on Q&A on the weekend, that she's looking at clarifying (i.e. reducing) the responsibilities of company directors and managers, with respect to their liability for the workplace conditions in the companies that they steward. Van Velden cited the White Island prosecutions as an example of the net of prosecutions being cast too widely. So if employers, directors and managers are to be held less liable in future, just who is being made more liable? Workers. To RNZ, Van Velden has said the re-balancing at Worksafe would include 'strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty.' Talk about blaming the victim. Finally, and as Tame pointed out to Van Velden, this new soft-line approach to employers is not at all like the way that the government treats beneficiaries. There's an obvious double standard. Allegedly, employers require guidance, lest they live in fear of being sanctioned for their sub-standard workplace conditions and/or dangerous work practices. Yet the poor are treated as if they require sanctions, as if living in fear of losing their meagre income will improve their behaviour. Employers are to receive the carrot of guidance, the poor are getting the stick of sanctions. So it goes, under this most Dickensian of governments. Natives, being restless Looking back… how terrifying it must have been for the members of the ACT Party to be challenged by a real live haka performed by real live brown people within the safe and familiar confines of the debating chamber. Gosh. To think that MPs still have to endure such goings on, despite all that the coalition government has done so far to rid the political process of anything that smacks of biculturalism. Funny though… those uniquely harsh sentences on the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, were applauded by the same ACT Party that – only a few months ago – took steps to compel universities t o allow the peddlers of misinformation to have access to the nation's campuses. In 2019, ACT Party leader David Seymour even called for the funding to be cut to tertiary institutions that did not take an all-comers approach to speakers on campus. 'It is not the role of universities to protect students from ideas they find offensive….' Mr Seymour said. On one hand, ACT Party MPs are to be protected from being exposed to interruptions and/or challenges. But trans people, or other vulnerable student minorities on campus? ACT's message to them is tough shit, and suck it up – because the cause of free speech trumps all other concerns, as long as it is not being directed at them. Odd indeed that a libertarian party committed to free speech should be deploying the forces of the state to compel universities to throw open their doors to anyone, without apparent heed to the consequences. One has to wonder whether this licence will be extended to Holocaust deniers, and to advocates of the Great Replacement Theory promulgated by the Christchurch mosque shooter, Brenton Tarrant. This is happening in the absence of evidence that there is a problem on campus that requires this level of heavy handed, pre-emptive intervention by the state. Saying sorry For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. Mr Speaker could have said – 'I take that to be three votes against,' and moved on. At that point, the vote's outcome was not in question. In context then, the performance of the haka was an expression of resistance meant to signal that Māori would continue to resist this legislative attempt to unilaterally change the nature of the Crown's partnership with Māori. To that end, the haka protest was a case of Māori representatives, protesting in Māori against an injustice being done to Māori, and it was occurring within the same precinct where the injustice was unfolding. IMO, you could hardly find a more appropriate time and place for that expression of free speech, delivered in one of the three languages formally recognised byParliament. Not only has the punishment been bizarrely disproportionate to the offence, but so have the calls for Te Pāti Māori to have made a plea deal in mitigation, by apologising for their defiance. Really? In the light of the time, effort and taxpayer money wasted by the ACT Party in bringing their pre-destined-to-fail Bill into Parliament, there should have been calls made – simultaneously – for the ACT Party to apologise. Seriously. We might then have had genuine grounds for a compromise. The Action Against Universities ACT's recent move to restrict the discretion of universities is disturbing on several grounds. But here's a contemporary concern. In the US, the Trump administration's recent attacks on major universities like Harvard – and their international students – has been aimed at punishing campus demonstrations against US/Israeli policy on Gaza, and at deterring university councils from divesting their sizeable investments in Israel. As yet, protests against Gaza have not been not as prominent on campuses here. Here's how the Gaza issue could easily come to the fore. New Zealand joined the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as an observer on June 24, 2022. The IHRA is an inter-governmental body based in Stockholm that is solely devoted to anti-Holocaust activities. It has at least 31 full member countries (including Australia) and also 8 'observer' countries, including New Zealand. As of June 24, New Zealand will reportedly be obliged to pay 30,000 euros to the IHRA to maintain its observer status. Alternatively, New Zealand could always apply for full IHRA membership, under the tutelage of an existing full member, presumably, Australia. If that happened, it would be interesting for New Zealanders to be given lessons by Australians on how to promote better race relations. To attain even our current 'observer' status, New Zealand would have previously had to (among other things) submitted an application letter signed by either our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Minister of Education. New Zealand would have also agreed to abide by these conditions. For example: we will have had to complete a survey on the state of Holocaust education, remembrance, and research in the country, which will have been submitted to the IHRA Permanent Office at least eight weeks before the Plenary meeting at which the interested government seeks admission as an Observer. Evidently – since New Zealand does now have observer status within the IHRA – we did all of the above. Much as some NZ politicians profess to oppose the use of the education curriculum for social engineering purposes, there would be few New Zealanders who would oppose a commitment to ensuring that nothing like the Holocaust ever happens again. But here's the not un-related problem. In December 2023, the US Congress passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that placed a very broad definition of anti-Semitism, promoted by the IHRA at the centre of federal civil rights law. At the time, some voices in US higher education circles expressed concern worried that this definition could have a chilling effect on free speech on key element in all of this was the controversial 'working definition' of anti-Semitism that has been promoted since 2016 by the IHRA. The IHRA website containing this definition is here. This definition of anti-Semitism has come under fire, from Jews and non-Jews alike. In Australia, the IHRA definition has been criticised by numerous academics and human rights lawyers as an infringement on academic freedom, free speech and the right to political protest. The IHRA has also faced a global backlash from Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of anti-Semitism, which includes 'targeting the state of Israel', could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle the freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK. In 2023, Nick Reimer the president of the Sydney branch of the Tertiary Education Union described the adoption of the IHRA definition as an 'outright attack on academic freedom'.'[The IHRA] will prevent universities doing what they're meant to do … critically analyse the contemporary world without concern for lobbies,' he said. 'A powerful political lobby is trying to stifle the course of free debate in universities..' Kenneth Stern, who self-identifies as a Zionist (and who was the lead drafter of the IHRA definition) has since spoken out in the New Yorker magazine against the misuse of the IHRA definition by right wing Jewish extremists. Among Stern's concerns is that the IHRA definition could be weaponised to stifle legitimate protest. So here's the thing. IF ACT feels driven to protect free speech on campus, would it oppose – or would it support – the adoption by university councils of the definition of anti-Semitism being promoted by the IHRA? In 2018, the Auckland University Students Association formally adopted the IHRA definition, but it is unclear whether student unions at any other NZ university have followed suit, let alone any NZ university administrations. Would ACT – as a a self-declared champion of free speech on controversial issues – support or oppose them doing so, given how the definition has allegedly been weaponised to restrict free speech? The Other Option Thankfully, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not the only option on the table. A competing definition of anti-Semitism emerged in 2021, largely in order to remedy the concerns held about the sweeping ambit of the IHRA definition. The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism is available here. It makes significant distinctions that are lacking in the IHRA document. Some of its guidelines are striking in nature. In context, it condones the controversial 'from the river to the sea' slogan and the boycott and divestment programme as being legitimate expressions of political protest. As Guideline 12 says: 12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants 'between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form. And here's Guideline 14 : 14. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. In its preamble, the Jerusalem Declaration also makes a useful distinction between criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, and anti-Semitism. It states 'Hostility to Israel could be an expression of anti-Semitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or … the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State.' Exactly. Criticism of the Israeli state is not necessarily (or primarily) motived by sentiments of anti-Semitism. Reportedly, the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism has been signed by three hundred and fifty scholars, including the historian Omar Bartov and Susannah Heschel, the chair of the Jewish Studies programme at the prestigious Dartmouth College in the US. So, and again… since ACT Party seems intent on having the state dictate to university councils how they should handle issues of free speech on campus, perhaps ACT can enlighten us on how it thinks universities should be treating allegations and defining the parameters of anti-Semitism. For starters: which definition of anti-Semitism does the ACT Party believe is more conducive to free and open debate on campus (and why) – the IHRA one, or the Jerusalem Declaration On Anti-Semitism? Big Thief Returns Adrianne Lenker's lyrics can seem as natural as breathing, at least until you notice how tightly structured her rhymes are, how surprising her analogies can be, and how the song narrative never wanders from the path of her intent. The new Big Thief track 'Incomprehensible' starts out as road trip with her lover along the Canadian side of Lake Superior – Thunder Bay and Old Woman Bay get nam-checked – before in verse two, the song becomes a meditation on growing old, and on how society teaches women to react with dread to the signs of ageing. Instead, Linker celebrates the silver hairs now falling on her shoulders, and what she sees in the faces and bodies of her older female relatives. Most songwriters would have left it that. But Lenker turns further inwards. As the lyric says, she wrote this song on the eve of her 33rd birthday, and she seems to have to terms with how unknowable – incomprehensible – we are to ourselves, and to each other. If you know Lenker's back catalogue, the 'Incomprehensible'song (BTW, it is the opening track of the upcoming Big Thief album Double Infinity) is the polar opposite of her earlier solo track, 'Zombie Girl.' In that song about a dis-integrating relationship, she's failing to bridge the distance between herself, and the zombie girl lying beside her.
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Scott Morrison receives Australia's highest honour for leading Australia through Covid-19
By Maani Truu , ABC News Scott Morrison. Photo: AFP Scott Morrison has credited Australians for their "courage and resilience" in the face of crises, including the Black Summer bushfires and a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, as he receives the country's highest honour for his leadership. The 30th prime minister has been appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) for his "eminent service" to the country and direction of the national Covid response, as part of the King's Birthday honours. Morrison was prime minister for just over three-and-a-half-years - between 2018 and 2022 - a period in which he said, "we were hit with pretty much every crisis you can imagine". "From natural disasters to a global pandemic, once in a hundred years, and of course the threats we faced in our region, and a recession caused by that global pandemic," he said in a sit-down interview before his appointment was publicly announced. "Through all of this Australians were just incredible and the one assumption I made is that that's how they would be - their character would pull them through and that's the basis on which we built the policies that helped us to achieve that." The AC is the highest award in the King's Birthday Honour List, designed to recognise achievements "in service to Australia or humanity at large". Former prime ministers are typically appointed, but the time between their service and the recognition varies. Morrison's appointment - three years after he lost the prime ministership - also notes his contributions to international engagement, economic initiatives and national security, particularly through his role in securing the AUKUS agreement . The latter was named by the former prime minister as one of his proudest achievements in office, among other work he said his government undertook to strengthen Australia's sovereignty. "The resilience and sovereignty of the country, whether it was building our resilience against disasters of the future, having dealt with them at the time, our economic resilience, incredibly important, the way we bounced back after Covid was incredible, and we had invested heavily in our small business sector in particular," he said. "It really was about protecting our sovereignty and building that up so we could deal with the significant challenges into the future." Morrison with then-Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern. Photo: RNZ / Dan Cook Morrison's term coincided with the height of the Covid pandemic, when international and state borders were slammed shut, Australians were locked down in their homes, and thousands of businesses were forced to close. Just months after the emergence of the virus in China, the former Liberal leader made the at-the-time unprecedented call to ban international travellers from entering Australia - a decision that likely staved off the crisis locally but also left many Australians stranded overseas and others separated from friends and family abroad. International borders remained closed for almost two years, only reopening to vaccinated travellers in early 2022 after the Omicron variant had swept the country. During the pandemic, Morrison, along with then-treasurer Josh Frydenberg, also oversaw the creation of the almost AU$90 billion JobKeeper scheme wage subsidy scheme, one of the largest economic support programs ever introduced. Asked if he had any regrets from that era this week, Morrison said you "don't get everything right, particularly when you face that many challenges". "But I tend not to dwell too much on that, because frankly there was just the next challenge coming the next day," he said. "You do the best job you can on the day and then you shake yourself off the next day and you do it all again." Morrison left Parliament at the start of 2024 , more than a year after losing the 2022 election to Labor prime minister Anthony Albanese. The end of his prime ministership was mired in scandal, after it emerged he had secretly sworn himself into five additional ministries during the pandemic . This week he described those secret positions as a "latent redundancy that was never active". "These were unusual times and there were many things we did that were unusual," he said. Since retiring from politics, Morrison has continued to advocate internationally for the AUKUS partnership, which he said remains "as strong today as the day it was announced" despite the arrival of the second Trump administration in the United States. He declined to comment on the current direction of the Liberal Party, which suffered one of the worst election defeats on record last month . But on its future, he said the party's principles remain "as important as they ever have been". "And they are ensuring a strong economy, a strong defence force, guaranteeing those services, responsible financial management - all of those things over the last 70 years and more have meant that Australia is in the strong position it is today," he said. "And for most of that time it has been Coalition governments that have been in government." Some 830 Australians - including Hollywood heavyweights, journalists, and community advocates - will be recognised in this year's King's Birthday Honours List. - ABC News
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Seymour on Māori funding: Need over race in Government policy shift
He went from being abused at Waitangi this year to the Bombay Hills to the opening of Tipene, St Stephen's School, a new charter school on the former site of the old St Stephen's College, which was closed in 2000. Untangling Government targeting can be confusing. Apparently funding for Māori-focused schools, be it charter or kura kaupapa, is fine. But funding for a Māori Health Authority, Te Aka Whai Ora, ended last year, and the authority was disestablished. Specific funding for Māori housing programmes was cut from Budget 2025, and funding for Māori trades training was cut. But funding for Māori wardens was increased, and continued for Whānau Ora. It is okay for Māori health providers to be contracted to increase immunisation rates for Māori babies. But when ACC tendered this year for expertise to reduce work injuries for Māori and Pacific people in the manufacturing sector, where they are over-represented, Act contacted the ACC Minister, and the Minister asked ACC to rethink. Ethnicity has been removed as one of five factors in what is called an equity adjustor for waiting lists in the health system, and a move by the last Government has been scrapped to screen Māori at a younger age for bowel cancer on the basis that they get it earlier. So when is targeting okay and not okay for Māori under Seymour's philosophical approach? Essentially, it's when all factors other than race have been ruled out. But he is defensive about the way Act has been criticised for it. 'In a lot of this debate, people assume we are opposed a group of people or a culture where in actual fact we are opposed to an arbitrary way it comes about.' When it comes to charter schools, Seymour says they present no discrimination, and that the fact that some are set up for Māori is neither an advantage or disadvantage. "There is a misconception that I and Act are opposed to anything Māori," says David Seymour. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'There is no discrimination in the policy. It says if you want to set up a school you must basically demonstrate three things: that you've got an idea, that you've got capacity to plausibly deliver on it and that you have community support. A wide range of people were doing it, including a kaupapa Māori school. 'The thing there is nothing in the policy that says you have advantage or disadvantage in being a Māori school.' The difference with the Māori Health Authority On the other hand, the Māori Health Authority had effectively said that New Zealand would have two health commissioning agencies because the most important thing about a person was their ethnicity.' 'With a charter school, by contrast, there's no putting different patients into different boxes,' said Seymour. 'People themselves can choose a school with a certain style. The difference is that charter schools are bottom-up. The Māori Health Authority was top-down.' Seymour cites the Cabinet Office Circular headed 'Needs-based service provision', which was issued to all in September last year as part of National's coalition agreements with Act and NZ First to set out its expectation that services should be delivered on the basis of need, not race. The salient parts state: 'The Government seeks to ensure that all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity or personal identity, have access to public services that are appropriate and effective for them, and that services are not arbitrarily allocated on the basis of ethnicity or any other aspect of identity. The circular draws on international law, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, for temporary circumstances in which affirmative action is acceptable. It quotes the convention: 'Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved'. The circular is essentially Government policy and sets expectations for ministers, chief executives and officials involved in service design, commissioning, and delivery of government services. Voucher system in tertiary education Seymour does not have a problem with the variety in the education system but does have a problem with any affirmative action courses that have lower standards for Māori or other groups. 'Tertiary education now, at least, is essentially a voucher system,' he said. 'You go to any registered tertiary institution and the state will fund your places. 'Do I have a problem, for example, with Te Waananga? No. If people want to go to the University of Auckland, they should. If they want to go to the Waananga, they should. Will they get different treatment at each one? Probably, but that's a pluralistic society. 'That I don't have a problem with.' But he was completely opposed to lower standards of admission for Māori to say, medical school. 'That is different access to opportunity based on your race, versus presenting and delivering the opportunity in different ways in a marketplace place and the latter I completely support, and that's what charter schools are.' He said he recently chastised a supporter of his who had complained about a netball tournament in Whanganui where you had to speak Māori for the whole tournament, and you could be penalised for speaking English. 'And I just said, 'Why is this a problem?'' It was no different to a camp for French language students where you could speak only French at the camp and there would be no problem with that. 'We have no problem with multiculturalism. It's discrimination and preferential allocation of resources that we have a problem with.' Seymour said he did not have a problem with using Māori health providers to have better access to Māori patients with defined needs. 'If you can genuinely show that ethnicity is your variable and that is better than any other way in making sure that all patients get better service, then we support that. 'But what we don't support is a framework where the starting premise of the law is that we are divided into tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti, and that is the lens through which we must always look. That I think is wrong. 'There is a misconception that I and Act are somehow opposed to anything Māori. We are really not.' Changes to ACC targeting So why did Act object to ACC's tender to reduce work injuries in the manufacturing sector, with targets for Māori and Pacific workers who have disproportionately higher injuries? 'There are two very different things here,' said Seymour. 'Do we believe in devolution and competition, and choice in the delivery of social services and we absolutely do. 'But then there is the question of 'should you then group your patients and commission different levels of service, regardless of who the providers are, by their ethnic background?' ACC Minister Scott Simpson had initially believed he had followed the cabinet circular, said Seymour. 'But the cabinet is very clear. It says you can use ethnicity as a variable for directing resources but you need to be very sure there aren't other variables that you could have used first – because we have so much more data than just a person's ethnicity and we can do far more accurate targeting if we are prepared to use the richness of data we have in the IDI [Statistics NZ's Integrated Data Infrastructure] rather than just defaulting to race. 'We need to be a lot more nuanced and sophisticated in our use of data,' said Seymour. ACC has since changed its practices. New guidance for staff has been developed to support the application of the Cabinet Office Circular to ACC's commissioning practices, said Andy Milne, ACC deputy chief executive for strategy, engagement and prevention. 'This will ensure that we evidence the need for any targeted commissioning and demonstrate that we are following the guidelines set out in the Government's circular.' ACC data showed that Māori and Pacific people disproportionately experience high injury rates in the manufacturing sector, which is one of five high-risk priority areas for ACC. In 2024, 18% of work-related weekly compensation claims in manufacturing impacted Māori (Māori constitute 14% of the workforce), and 11% of work-related weekly compensation claims in manufacturing impacted Pacific people (10% of the workforce). The original tender sought a target outcome of 5461 claims to be saved by the end of the benefit realisation period (approximately 10 years from the delivery phase). At least 18% of the claims saved were to be from Māori, and 11% from Pacific people. After Act and the minister's intervention, the tender was reissued by ACC without the ethnic targets, and closed last week. Targeted services is 'good government' Nicola Willis took the paper on the circular to cabinet last year as Public Service Minister, and it also revoked the previous Government's affirmative action, the progressive procurement policy, which aimed to get Government agencies to award 8% of their contracts to Māori businesses. 'I am concerned that retaining targets for a specific group (or groups) of businesses based on ethnicity sends the wrong signal to agencies about awarding contracts first and foremost on public value,' Willis wrote. 'I consider this approach, regardless of how carefully it is implemented, leaves an impression of an uneven playing field and a perception (whether warranted or not) of potential discrimination.' The cabinet paper acknowledges the benefits of targeted services, not just to ethnically defined groups but disabled people, seniors, people living in rural area or those with diverse sexualities or gender identities. 'Services targeted or designed for specific population groups are an established feature of good government,' she wrote. But where targeted services were proposed, 'I expect these to be informed by clear evidence of a disparity, and evidence that culturally responsive or population-specific service models would be more effective. In other words, targeted services should coincide with a focus on need…' She said the proposals were consistent with the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. 'We are committed to achieving equitable outcomes for all New Zealanders, and I acknowledge this will often require services targeted or tailored to specific ethnic population groups, subject to the analytical rigour proposed in the circular to confirm such need.' 'I believe the need is overwhelming." Labour Social Development spokesman Willie Jackson. Photo / Mark Mitchell Former Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson was one of the first to condemn cuts to targeted programmes in this year's Budget, including the Māori Trade and Training. 'The Government should hang its head in shame after a budget that takes a knife to more Māori programmes,' he said on Budget day. He felt it keenly. For six years as a minister in the Labour-led Government, he worked with Finance Minister Grant Robertson to build up targeted funding for Māori to a total of about $1b a year by 2023. He also drove the now-ditched progressive procurement policy for Māori businesses to get a slice of the $50b annual procurement of Government agencies. In his view, targeted funding, particularly using Māori providers in health and social services, is the most effective way of getting to Māori in the most need. 'I believe the need is overwhelming and the facts show the need is overwhelming in terms of Māori,' he told the Herald. 'There is a big group and a growing group who just trust Māori processes, and their Māori health provider. And they are shell-shocked at the moment.' 'Our people trust our people' He believes the reason Seymour is averse to targeting on race is because it was his way of 'walking away from Treaty obligations.' So why did Labour decide to set up a Māori Health Authority? Was it a Treaty obligation or a measure for more targeted delivery? 'The inability to access health was a huge factor in terms of the Māori Health Authority. Always at the forefront was need, but of course the Treaty was there too,' said Jackson. 'But I believe we always operated from a position of need, and Māori absolutely fulfilled that criteria. That is why I pushed so hard over that time for targeted Māori funding. 'He can call it racist, but our people trust our people.' There were 'incredible gaps' in Māori statistics that needed to be addressed with ''for Māori, by Māori' strategies.' And he believes most New Zealanders supported it. 'They just want common sense. They want fairness. They don't want extreme in terms of the Māori stuff and where Māori funding is due. They don't want separate everything.' Jackson was not sure if Labour would go to next year's election promising to reinstate the Māori Health Authority, Te Aka Whai Ora. 'But we will bring back in absolutely Māori-targeted funding. We are committed to targeted funding,' he said. 'We have learnt some of the lessons of the past' 'The reality is Māori want more funding and more resources. I just want to get our people the necessary funding and resources. 'It doesn't have to be in any separate entities, and maybe it won't be if we get back in because we have to learn some of the lessons of the past.' But Robertson acknowledged that funding and resourcing for Māori had been minimal. That was why target funding under Labour rose so much. 'And that is no racist funding. That is funding based on need. 'But also, there is a Treaty obligation. We are a partner, and that's how governments should look at things,' said Jackson. 'It doesn't mean that there is a Māori takeover. It is just an acknowledgement that the biggest need in this country is Māori.' While Jackson believes that National is 'buckling' to David Seymour's view of targeting, it is clear that National's ministers are less vexed by it. 'It was a fiscal, not philosophical' Speaking about the Budget in May, Social Development Minister Louise Upston justified ending funding for Māori Trades and Training on the basis it had been time-limited funding and that was where she first looked for savings. 'The Māori Trades Training fund was established during Covid times and then extended in 2022 and due to expire 30 June 2025,' she said. 'For things that were due to end, there had to be a very, very strong reason why I would have to continue them and have to find savings elsewhere.' Budget 2025 had focused on employment, and the intervention that had been the most successful was case management 'so that is where we have focused the resources'. In the past year, it had funded $21 million for 52 providers for expenses incurred on programmes that supported Māori through Trades and Training. But Upston insisted it was a fiscal decision, not a philosophical one based on the Cabinet Office Circular approved by Cabinet. Louise Upston said the focus in this year's budget went on case management. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'Totally and absolutely. It had nothing to do with the name of it. I looked at all programmes that had a time limit.' She said she had felt no need to conduct any reviews of programmes in Social Development in the light of the circular. 'If you look at Social Development, it is pretty clear who is over-represented in job seeker numbers. It is young people, it is Māori, it is Pasifika, it is disabled and to a lesser degree, women. 'What I wanted to do is make sure we are funding initiatives that are effective, and we have data and evidence to prove they have the greatest impact at supporting people back into employment.' The He Poutama Rangatahi programme for young people not in education, employment or training (Neets) continued, with $33 million, down from $44 million, but that is targeted at all Neets. Housing Minister Chris Bishop, with Finance Minister Nicola Willis, says he wants a more granular housing system. Photo / Mark Mitchell Housing funding consolidated Housing Minister Chris Bishop said the targeted Māori housing fund, Whai Kainga Whai Oranga, administered by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Te Puni Kokiri, had been consolidated into a single funding source with several other housing funds. 'The money hasn't disappeared. It has just been consolidated into a different fund, and one of the things that fund will be looking at is who they can partner with in order to deliver houses for people in need. 'The intention is for the Government to be much more deliberate and targeted about the housing solutions that are invested in around the country. 'That fund will end up investing in a range of different Māori housing solutions around the country.' He was confident it would be an effective fund for supporting iwi in post-settlement governance entities and Māori land trusts that wanted to do things in housing. 'What we are doing with the housing system is to move towards a much more granular system, more evidence-based, where we focus on the right house in the right place for the right people. 'The system at the moment is way too much one-system-fits-all.' He said he wanted the system to be more targeted to need. 'We know where the housing need is, but the system doesn't actually cater for that at the moment. We know where the regional needs are.' There was a role in working with Māori housing providers 'in the same way as there is a role for kura kaupapa, there is a role in working with Māori health providers, who did an excellent job during the Covid pandemic, for example.' Bishop's office later confirmed that $188 million in uncommitted Māori housing operating funding and $383 million capital funding were reprioritised. New housing priorities include: $200m for 400 affordable rentals to be delivered through Māori housing projects ($48m opex; $151m capex) $168m for 550 social housing places to be delivered in Auckland ($128m opex; $40m capex) $300m for 650-900 social and affordable rentals through the new Flexible fund ($41m opex; 250m capex) What's the answer to disadvantage? So, back to Seymour for the last word. What would Seymour's approach be to lifting Māori out of the state of disadvantage they find themselves in in so many social statistics? The answer is dynamism. 'First of all, it's not all Māori and not only Māori. I would say all people who are in a state of disadvantage will benefit from a more dynamic opportunity because when there is more dynamism, there is more opportunity. 'For example, if there are more homes being built, it is more likely a young person will end up owning one. 'If there are more companies being formed with more capital investment, it is more likely that someone who doesn't have a good job or opportunity right now will get one. 'If there is more innovation and more schools opening up that are engaging students in newer and better ways, it is more likely that a person who doesn't have a good opportunity to get an education will get one. 'In my view, it is dynamism. We are seeing this with whole countries. You look at South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Ireland, some of the more successful eastern European countries such as Estonia, they've gone, often in less than two generations, from a situation where essentially everyone is destitute and down on their luck and lacking opportunity…to dynamic opportunity. 'Suddenly, new companies are being built, new houses are being built, and people have recovered their self-esteem because they have taken on challenges and overcome their challenges. 'That's the only thing in my view that makes anyone feel good.'
