After discussions abt how well National's frontbench is positioned to represent NZ, I’m interested in its views on the place of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti in particular). Coming across a paper Paul Goldsmith wrote 2 yrs before being elected in 2011 raises some questions /1

Paul Goldsmith’s paper was written in 2009 for the Business Roundtable (an organisation closely tied to privatisation of public services in the 1980s and 1990s). It’s called The Treaty of Waitangi: The Uses and Abuses of a ‘Living Document’. The argument is pretty familiar. /2

Goldsmith says the 1970s saw the rise of “the treaty ‘industry’”. He claims the Treaty was used “increasingly to develop a notion of special status for those who choose to claim some Maori ancestry.” Māori “have come to gain a greater say in government than other NZers.” /3

Goldsmith says: in debate about past wrongs “the negatives of Maori experiences of colonization have been emphasized repeatedly, and the positives overlooked.” Does he still hold this view? Does he think the positives of colonization are understated in NZ public debate? /4

Goldsmith writes “There has been general tolerance for a certain amount of deviation [from equality] … but there is only so far it can be pushed before NZ loses its shine as a modern democratic society.” Does Goldsmith think the Treaty is a threat to NZ's democracy today? /5

He says in future “Logic would suggest that [the Treaty’s] relevance as a guiding force for social and constitutional arrangements will have dwindled over time.” As possible Finance Minister, responsible for funding decisions, does he think the Treaty's dwindling in relevance? /6

Then there are other things worth raising. He describes legislation protecting “Maori concerns”, and says: “Amongst these concerns are animistic superstitions such as beliefs about taniwha.” Would he still use that language about “animistic superstitions” around a decade on? /7

The only other time I’ve come across the term “animist” is when Don Brash, whose biography Paul Goldsmith wrote in 2005 (the year after the Orewa Speech), has used it to describe Māori views. (See e.g. Don Brash talking about “animist views” here: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10764866.) /8

This was a paper from 2009, and it's still online here: https://nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/reports/the-treaty-of-waitangi-the-uses-and-abuses-of-a-living-document/. More could be said about other parts of it, including Goldsmith’s use of language (and especially his talk of Treaty being “locked further into legislation” and “a flood of treaty settlements”). /9

Of course people could defend Goldsmith’s arguments. I also think all parties should be challenged on their commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. All I think is there are legitimate q's abt whether Goldsmith still holds these views+how much they reflect National's position. /10