NZ First’s ‘NZ values’ the fuzziest of concepts

THE text of the prospective Respecting New Zealand Values Bill, which NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell wants to bring to Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill, isn’t available.

It’s not on the parliamentary website, and apparently won’t be released until the NZ First caucus has decided whether it becomes party policy. Details of what’s proposed seem to be found only in Mr Mitchell’s head, and some not even there: he’s unsure whether enforcement should be through an ‘‘independent panel’’ or the courts.

But when he brought a remit about the proposed Bill to the NZ First Conference, Mr Mitchell said its Preamble would argue that ‘‘immigrants must agree to respect New Zealand values and to live a life that demonstrates that they respect New Zealand values’’, and that the Bill would require immigrants to accept religious freedom, gender and marriage equality, and the legality of alcohol consumption, and a commitment not to campaign against the availability of alcohol.

It’s easy to make fun of the proposed Bill, as several cartoonists have, but it should be looked at seriously too, both in detail and regarding its principle.

To address one puzzling detail, why the ban on campaigning against alcohol?

New Zealand has a long and honourable history of campaigns for prohibition, and it was from such campaigning in the late 19th century that the successful campaign for universal women’s suffrage derived. It’s not so long ago that electors were asked, during each general election, to vote for prohibition, continuance, or state control, which implies freedom to campaign for any of those options.

Two possible explanations come to mind, neither of them reassuring.

Is it an attempt to muzzle those who campaign for alcohol harm reduction? Have the booze barons bought NZ First? But the Electoral Commission’s list of political donations of $30,000 or more a year from the same donor shows none to NZ First from the alcohol industry

(in fact it shows none at all to NZ First between 1.1.11 and 7.8.18 — did it really not receive any such donations, or does it make sure all donations to it are below the yearly limit?).

Or does Mr Mitchell’s history as a pub owner (the pub was shut down for a week over heavy drinking promotions that ‘‘seriously’’ broke liquor laws) mean he’s on their side anyway?

But the most likely explanation, despite Mr Mitchell’s protestations that ‘‘This is actually the antithesis of racism’’ and ‘‘It’s not about religion’’ is that it’s a veiled attempt to prevent Muslims from emigrating to New Zealand.

The provision stinks of Islamophobic racism — perhaps NZ First member Roger Melville’s comment ‘‘I’m afraid that we’re getting some certain types creeping in, of various nationalities, or various ideas, that are not actually kosher with NZ’s way of life’’, linked with Mr Mitchell’s remark that New Zealand values are ‘‘largely known as Christian based’’, is relevant.

Another detail: where does Te Tiriti o Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document, triggered by immigration and its effect on tangata whenua, fit into the proposed Bill?

Professor Paul Spoonley, of

Massey University, who’s pointed out that ‘‘citizenship tests’’ are ‘‘confusing and inconsistent’’, summed up the proposed Bill as ‘‘nonsense’’. And it is, not just in detail, but as a concept.

Who defines New Zealand values? Each person’s set of values is unique, and they change with time.

To take one ‘‘value’’ cited by Mr Mitchell, marriage equality has existed in New Zealand for only five years (in 1986 Winston Peters voted against even decriminalisation of male samesex liaisons).

What matters is law.

The Bill of Rights Act is probably the nearest thing to a legal guide to New Zealand values, and a plain language summary of it, and the Human Rights Act, would be a useful resource for immigrants. But the only real test of commitment to New Zealand values (failed by many New Zealanders) is abiding by New Zealand law.

That doesn’t require new legislation.