Core Identity

The Haps

ACT had another one of its effective weeks. Brooke passed employment laws for people who want to work, not shirk. She even found time to make it easier to charge electric vehicles and run an amusement park by cutting red tape. David Seymour announced Pharmac is funding two new blood cancer drugs thanks to savings, and an iwi-led charter school is opening in the Ureweras. Once again ACT is doing more for Māori futures without all the haka. Nicole made the Courts go 22 per cent faster (not her usual association with .22). She also opened up liquor licences to clubs like RSAs so there’s a more affordable option for non-members to eat and drink and for clubs to make money if they want to. Todd Stephenson blew the whistle on the Army’s cultural framework, and it’s being paused. Phew.

Core Identity

The attempt to indoctrinate the Army into a 'Māori world view' accidentally raises an interesting question about the core of the New Zealand identity. What should the New Zealand Army fight for?

Any citizen could be called to fight, so it should fight for things that benefit every citizen. The Army (and Navy and Air Force) can’t defend everything, so they should focus on things that New Zealand couldn’t survive without. What the Army should fight for is the core of the New Zealand identity.

Free Press is a liberal democratic publication. If we were asked what’s essential to a State like New Zealand, we would say:

Democracy is the best system of government. There must be regular, free, and fair elections where the people can peacefully dismiss an unpopular Government.

People should be free to live as they choose so long as they're not harming others. The Bill of Rights Act has a good list of these rights: Free speech, free movement, free association, the right to due process if accused of a crime.

People should not face discrimination because of their gender, sexuality, or spiritual beliefs. The Human Rights Act has a reasonable, not perfect, summary of these rights.

These rights don’t need to include ‘being Catholic,’ ‘being Rarotongan,’ ‘being gay,’ or ‘believing in unicorns.’ Those are specific instances of religion, race, sexuality, and belief that are protected by the core freedoms. At the heart of the Army’s mistake is that they’ve mixed up a specific instance of culture and spiritual belief with a core principle of the society.

They ask their soldiers to fight for a set of Māori spiritual beliefs that even most Māori don’t take seriously, let alone most New Zealanders. The Army’s document says things like: "As the people of Tūmatauenga, it is crucial for us to understand the cosmological traditions associated with the deity whose name we bear...."

And: "The story of Tūmatauenga is further enriched by the narratives of other deities like Rongo, Papatūānuku, and Hine-nui-te-pō, illustrating the dynamic balance between war and peace, life and death, and nurturing and resilience. This interplay is an important aspect of the Māori worldview, reflecting the natural cycle of life."

To give the Army credit, they were trying to unite the Army behind a cause. As quoted in the Herald, 'the underlying philosophy was to cement a united force that was resistant to “disinformation, influence operations, and psychological tactics” used by adversaries.'

That’s fine, but if they want to unite the Army behind some values it should be freedom and democracy, universal truths that you can explain without referring to any person’s race and religion. For example, ‘people live longer, happier, healthier, wealthier lives under the democratic system of Government.’ That is a fact, and it is true no matter what colour you are.

Debating this issue in the context of the Army brings real clarity, fast. By asking ‘what should New Zealanders be asked to die for in a conflict,’ you get to the point very quickly, but the same basic question could be applied to lots of less urgent areas.

What is the core of the New Zealand identity that migrants and new citizens should be asked to sign up to? What should the public service see as core identity, that employees must sign up to, compared with private expression, that people have a right to do but not impose on others? What should state schools be required to teach, and what should they be forbidden from imposing?

The Army’s misadventure may have done us all a big favour by pushing an important debate along. Watch this space.