& Social Licence to Operate
What is Critical Race Theory?
An outcome of the European Marxist School of critical theory, critical race theory seeks to link racism, race, and power. Critical race theorists challenge the very foundations of democracy. Critical race theorists argue that social life, political structures, and economic systems are founded upon race, which (in their view) is a social construct.
Systemic racism, in the eyes of critical race theorists, stems from the dominance of race in our way of life. Critical race theorists and anti-racist advocates argue that, because race is a predominant part of our way of life, racism itself has become internalized into our conscience. It is because of this, they argue, that there have been significantly different legal and economic outcomes between different racial groups.
Does Critical Race Theory Affect Us?
Critical Race theory (CRT) is a huge issue at present in the United States of America and many would say that it does not affect us here in New Zealand but I disagree.
Our current Labour government has passed, and is proposing to pass more, legislation that is undemocratic and race based. The reasons for this are being stated as redressing historical wrongs of institutional racism against Maori.
And when we compare what is happening currently in New Zealand to the situation in the USA in relation to CRT we can see the same effects here as in the US.
A classic example of this being the recently publicised “He Pua Pua” report
How is CRT affecting us?
CRT advocates incorporate its key elements into policies, training programs & manuals and standard operating procedures. Their efforts are being advanced under various euphemisms such as cultural competency training and diversity, equity, and inclusion. There’s this revolving language system that they use to confuse, avoid, and obfuscate. They’re using it because they refuse to defend their race theory on its own merits because even they know that it’s indefensible politically.
Our current Labour government has denied that the He Pua Pua report is in any way government policy, yet they have taken action in different ways that seem to respond to the findings within the He Pua Pua report as shown below:
Anti-Racism, Bias, and Diversity Training – To get staff to address these issues, government departments have required them to undergo compulsory cultural competency training.
Changing Educational Curriculum Requirements – There has been a push to expose the broader public to the supposed racial biases imbued in New Zealand’s history curriculum. As a result, advocates have been pushing for changes in the curriculum to be heavily oriented to the history of Maori in New Zealand, with so much of that history relying on sometimes unreliable oral accounts. The themes of what is to be taught are, at best, an extremely incomplete view of our history.
It is asserted in the proposed curriculum that Maori chiefs did not cede sovereignty in signing the Treaty but rather entered into some kind of “partnership” with the Crown. This latter-day reinterpretation of the Treaty is simply stated as a fact, without any acknowledgement that the assertion is hotly contested, is flatly contradicted by many of the speeches recorded by Colenso in writing at the time (on 5 February 1840), and flatly contradicted also by speeches made by numerous chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860. This is such a fundamental matter that to simply assert that a partnership was created between the Crown and Maori chiefs totally discredits any claim to objectivity which the proposed curriculum might have had. There are a number of assertions made as if they were uncontested and verifiable fact, when at best they are based on supposition and centuries-old oral tradition.
Free Speech Disciplinary Measures – The government has taken steps to clamp down on our democratic rights to free speech, by committing to change the legislation “hate speech” and “racist language”, among other measures even though this is currently well covered under the Bill of Rights.
Funding Critical Race Theory Programs and Research – The government have spent $55 million on what they call the Public Interest Journalism Fund and although this was supposedly to support the public media through the economic downturn resulting from the international Covid 19 pandemic, one of the requirements of eligibility for that funding subsidy is that all applicants must “actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Protection [their capitals] under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Maori as a Te Tiriti partner”. All applicants must show a “clear and obvious” commitment to the Treaty and te reo; no exceptions.
It is stated that applicants are likely to be regarded favourably if their journalism proposals “meet the definition of Maori and iwi journalism” or “report from perspectives including Pacific, pan-Asian, women, youth, children, persons with disabilities [and] other ethnic communities”.
“Maori and iwi journalism”, incidentally, is defined as being “made by Maori about Maori perspectives, issues and interests prioritising the needs of Maori”. But that’s not journalism; that’s advocacy. The two are quite different and may often be at odds.
Social license to operate (SLO), normally, refers to the ongoing acceptance of a company or industry’s standard business practices and operating procedures by its employees, stakeholders, and the general public.
This is also true for governments.
Governments get elected by the people to act on behalf of the people to ensure the greater good for the majority of the people. To get elected parties produce a list of policies which they then promote to the general public as being the items that they will address if elected. When a government is elected they have the ability to change their list of policies or priorities as long as they can achieve a majority vote in the parliament.
Once government is elected then they are able to govern and continue to do so until the next election and this would be the government’s equivalent of operating within their Social Licence.
There are two ways that any government can be removed from office; lose an election or lose a vote of no confidence in the house of parliament.
Both of those come about from a loss of social licence to operate which is usually due to the general public being dissatisfied with government policy.
It is very unusual for a government to face a vote of no confidence in our parliament but not so unusual that they lose an election, with both outcomes being from the loss of their Social Licence to operate.
This Loss of Social Licence to operate normally comes from a majority of the population becoming disenchanted with government policy and the implementation of that policy.
I believe that New Zealand is rapidly reaching the point where there is major disenchantment with the current government’s policies and this is showing in the growing strident opposition to current proposals such as the Three Waters Reforms; Hate Speech legislative proposals; Appointment of unelected race based council members; Creation of separate Maori Health board with power of veto over all health funding; changes to the history curriculum; etc.
This Government is passing legislation through Parliament with the assumption that all people are not free and equal; that some are more equal than others and that some are better able to consider how we get better healthcare, not based on the matters before them, not based on any particular expertise they may have, but based on ethnic background.
The fact of the matter is that if we go down this pathway and we start saying that, actually, some members are better qualified based on their demographic characteristics to address a matter than others, then we are going to find ourselves in a very poor place. We’re going to find ourselves in a place where some members are not equally capable, and therefore some people who elect some members don’t have equal political rights.
This comes back to this simple idea of equality for all and Democratic Rights.
This government is promoting a 50/50 system of race based governance presided over by a tribal elite of unelected Maori representatives which will be bad for the majority of the Maori population and also New Zealand’s other races.
The challenge for the government if they wish to retain their social licence to operate, is to now defend the current apartheid based system they are promoting which basically states that people aren’t born free and equal; or
They could be honest and dump this system of race based governance, stop promoting policies of division and return to supporting the democratic rights of all on an equal basis.
There may be significant issues within the Health Ministry for Maori, but instituting an Apartheid system of governance will only make the division between Maori and other races get much wider. To treat Maori equally with other races does not require race based apartheid governance systems, although it may require specifically targeted programs to address the issues.
We do not need to destroy Democracy in New Zealand to achieve the desired results just use the resources that we have, wisely, for the benefit of all citizens equally.
Andy Loader