As a nation that stood proudly on the world stage as one of the most tolerant and inclusive societies in the world, New Zealand heads into the 2023 general election on a platform of race over citizenship and division over unity.

New Zealand has become a nation that, on almost any topic, race has been inserted as the critical consideration in the development of law and policy.

Under the guise of obligations, interpreted from the Treaty of Waitangi, decision making has become almost crippled by layers of race-based considerations and duties.

New Zealand has lost sight of its obligations to care for the most vulnerable and most in need. The first consideration is race, with an assumption that being Māori pre-determines you as being incapable of achieving on merit regardless of individual circumstance.

Putting race at the heart of policy and legislative development is proven to be a failed social experiment.

This month New Zealand recognised the 183rd anniversary of signing the Treaty of Waitangi, an unprecedented and laudable document that sought to build a nation by bringing together people, and providing an assurance of the same rights and privileges.

Ironically, despite nearly 40 years of redress and reparation, spearheaded by the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, we have drifted further apart.

The speed of this separation has accelerated by the most recent Labour government with the implementation of a concept referred to as ‘co-governance’.

As with any formative nation, New Zealand got things wrong. There were events and issues for which it is appropriate that a mechanism of redress was established. We have, however, long since shifted from issues of land confiscation and reparation.

Most recently, it was claimed that Māori drowning statistics are impacted by colonisation, and the loss of cultural knowledge and expertise.

This determination to put race as the foundational principle is failing the most vulnerable and most in need. The few politicians and lobbyists that dare to suggest that legislative race-based separation is not the best solution are vilified with cries of racism.

It seemingly is fine with the political class if accountability and transparency are lost as long as we can tick the race box.

The fact remains that the vast array of consultative groups, added layers of bureaucracy and legislative complexity, that were established to ensure the voices of Māori are heard and acted upon, has done nothing but line the pockets of lawyers, consultants, and self-appointed Māori representatives.

At the bottom of this pile of good intentions and virtue signalling are the children who will be deprived of a better education, food on the table, and protection from violence, while those who claim to represent their interests attend just conferences and boardroom meetings.

It is a recurring theme to quote statistics in New Zealand to justify policy development. One of the most common is that Māori make up 50 per cent of the male prison population and 65 per cent of the female prison population. We ignore the fact that this 50 per cent figure is approximately 0.4 per cent of the Māori population of New Zealand. How disingenuous it is to develop social policy that uses this statistic to justify yet another mechanism for division.

Watching Australia wander down the path of a partnership model that establishes a ‘Voice’, it is perhaps appropriate to offer a caution.

Layers of bureaucracy does not put food on the table for the hungry, and more importantly, offers no accountability for those bureaucrats that fail to deliver. Assurances that there will be better decision-making and better outcomes achieved through this constitutional change in Australia are either founded on naivety or deceit.

What can be assured is lawyers rushing off to the courtroom when failures continue, as well as politicians desperate to remain relevant creating legislation to ‘clarify’ the misunderstandings.

Casey Costello is a spokesperson for Hobson’s Pledge in New Zealand. This opinion piece is based on forthcoming research for the Institute of Public Affairs.