Eliza Doolittle sang about her exasperation with Freddy and Professor Higgins in My Fair Lady.
Words! Words! Words! I’m so sick of words! I get words all day through; first from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do?
Now it is me and I’m sure many other Kiwis, voicing our exasperation following the daily self-promoting sermons from Jacinda Do-Little or “Chippie” Hipkins and Dr Ashley Bloomfield about Covid-19 and that other prevailing New Zealand sickness – inactivity.
Yes, inactivity, caused by both lockdown and official mismanagement of what ought to be straightforward official responses to medical emergencies: testing and vaccination.
Thanks to the bumble-handed mismanagement of the current central government administration, the classic Kiwi description “couldn’t organise a booze-up in a brewery” is fast becoming “couldn’t organise a vaccination in a pandemic”.
But there’s light at the end of the political tunnel: the longer that the Ministers-in-Charge of Making Announcements About Coming Announcements of the Appointments of Advisory Boards instead of actually governing, the more certain it is that New Zealand will vote for a change of government in 2023. We can look forward to a coalition led by the National Party, with Iron Lady Judith Collins as our new Prime Minister, to get the country back in business and on the road to prosperity and progress.
That being so, it’s time for National to stop just opposing (as is its constitutional role), but also to start to look and sound like a government-in-waiting. Not an easy assignment these days with so much of our mainstream news views media in thrall to the Ardern government’s hush money handouts, quaintly named the Public Interest Journalism Fund. Payable only to a medium that interprets “Public Interest” as “Jacinda’s Interests”.
The most insidious issue currently is the by-stealth attempt by Ardern’s government to impose separatist co-governance of New Zealand under the extremist He Puapua plan. A plan being pushed hard by a small group of ambitious Maori zealots on the specious premise that the Treaty of Waitangi involved some kind of “partnership.”
For starters, read what the redoubtable researcher Hugh Perrett says about this in Dr Muriel Newman’s NZCPR Newsletter:
Together with many other New Zealanders, I must express my extreme concern at Government’s continuing deliberate re-invention of and misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, seemingly for its own political agenda and benefit, by promulgating what can only be described as Government endorsed Separatism through a Government sponsored system of neo- apartheid – a political structure which for decades we despised and rejected relative to South Africa.
As Mr Perrett points out, part and parcel of this Taliban-like plot to tribalise New Zealand is encouragement of the apathetic and especially the younger Kiwis, to substitute the mythical name Aotearoa for the name of our country. This, notwithstanding that we are totally known and respected internationally as New Zealand, which has become the brand name for the primary product exports which are our economic lifeblood – a brand name hard-earned and now worth incalculable billions of dollars.
Recently, my good friend and wine industry colleague, Stuart Smith, MP for Kaikoura (which covers our premier viticultural region Marlborough), suggested a referendum to decide whether or not Aotearoa is acceptable. Here is his reasoning:
There is no doubt that the Maori language has a significant place in New Zealand. I like using Maori place names and I am an enthusiastic student of te reo. I take regular classes, as is my individual choice, but I might add my ability does not match my enthusiasm.
However, I am well aware that not everyone shares my enthusiasm for learning languages nor sees the role of te reo exactly as I do.
In the past few months, there has been an increasing spotlight placed on significant changes to how our Government enacts the Crown responsibility to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. While there are those who vehemently support the notion of co-governance and, of course, those who oppose it, it is my opinion that most New Zealanders fall into a third group. This group are more concerned with the lack of transparency from the Government in implementing co-governance policies without consultation or engagement with the whole of New Zealand.
National Party Leader Judith Collins has been labelled a racist by the Maori Party for bringing this conversation to the table and inviting Kiwis to have their say on these matters.
My view is that asking legitimate questions about the future of our country is not racist. Parliamentarians are voted in by the people and work for the people. If we sit back, don’t ask questions, and let the Government advance what are pretty radical changes, without advocating for adequate consultation, then we are not doing our jobs properly.
There is a particular change that, while seemingly nominal, has sparked some controversy; the de facto changing of New Zealand’s name to Aotearoa New Zealand by the Government and in the media.
Now, I am not seeking to make a judgement call about whether we should change our name or not. That is neither here nor there. I am simply giving voice to the argument that perhaps before the shift began to be put in motion, New Zealanders themselves should have been consulted.
It is presumptuous and disrespectful to make a decision of such cultural importance for the country without engaging all who live there.
Sir John Key had the courage to stand by his convictions and let New Zealanders decide whether we should change our flag. No matter where you stood on the issue, you still had the opportunity to have a say. Sir John lost that debate when New Zealand voted to retain the existing flag and he accepted this verdict.
Arguably changing the name of the country is even more significant than changing the flag and it is my belief that the right thing for the Labour Government to do is to advance an open conversation on this.
For some people, for example those who have represented or fought for New Zealand, there is a very strong connect with our existing name. For others, the te reo name Aotearoa holds greater significance. As I see it, there is no right or wrong perspective. However, it is wrong for a public service and Government to decide a way forward with no regard for how New Zealanders think or feel about it.
To which, most sensible Kiwis will utter a fervent “Hear! Hear!”
But not the Ardern government, nor the more strident of their few extremist Maori accomplices who, I am sure, are not a reflection of the general view of our tangata whenua. And when Judith Collins found Stuart’s suggestion logical and reasonable, the Puapuans started screaming “Racism!”
In my book, that mendacious minority who want to divide the country on the basis of ethnicity, based on a deliberately distorted travesty of what the Treaty actually says, are the racists and the sooner they are removed from any part in our governance the better for us and our country.
So I now urge the National Party to publicly, loudly and often, call for the referendum on the use of Aotearoa, confident that the vast majority of Kiwis will support the continued use of New Zealand as our one and only official name; and confident also that, by implication, this will be a rejection of He Puapua and its secret Marxist agenda.
As the National Party, under Judith’s Iron Lady leadership finds its voice as a government-in-waiting, there are other issues that even the most venal of media can’t resist. Such as this one: ” America’s Cup: Paul Lewis – Inside the distasteful plot to oust Grant Dalton from Team NZ”
So, here’s a suggested media statement from Judith Collins that I believe even Granny Herald couldn’t resist:
The certainty of an Auckland defence of the America’s Cup has been increased by an announcement today by Opposition Leader, Hon Judith Collins:
As Prime Minister of New Zealand from late 2023, I pledge that our new National-led government will underwrite the cost of defending the America’s Cup in Auckland to the extent of $200 million. Of that total, as a result of an agreement I have reached with Hon Mark Mitchell, if Mark becomes Mayor of Auckland next year, Auckland Council will contribute an underwrite of up to $100 million, so that the costs would be shared between ratepayers of Auckland and taxpayers of New Zealand, in approximately the same ratio of the economic benefits of retaining the event in our country. In any case, our Government would assume responsibility for the full $200 million – end of story.
“I hope this will put an end to current bickering about this issue, and Grant Dalton and his team can get on with attracting commercial sponsorship and planning for a successful defence of the Cup in our Hauraki Gulf.
“With a National-led government of the country, and an Auckland Council refreshed after a review and restructure that Mark as Mayor and I as Prime Minister will initiate as a matter of urgency, we expect that these under-writings will be covered by cost savings to both government and Council, as we eliminate unnecessary extravagances bedevilling the present governance of our largest city, causing avoidable costs and delays to our citizenry, many of which are imposed by unelected functionaries who have no accountability to the ratepayers who pay the bills.
“Both Mark and I are committed to restoring our City of Sails to not only the most liveable, but also the most affordable and efficient.”
So, c’mon Nats! Let’s be hearing from you!
Please share this BFD article so others can discover The BFD.