The World Health Organisation has been telling us for most of this year that the key to getting on top of the Covid19 pandemic is constant and thorough testing of any and all potential at risk patients. Yet, in spite of managing many other aspects of Covid19 well, New Zealand still seems to be having difficulty with its testing regime, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to get clear and consistent answers from those responsible about what is happening and why it is so. 

We know that after a slow start testing levels in the general community and in managed isolation and quarantine facilities are picking up, in part due to a concentrated focus on border control and our approach to managed isolation and quarantine; in part because of the recent community outbreak in Auckland; and, in part because of continued calls from epidemiological experts for a greater focus being placed on testing. That is good, and to be encouraged. 

But the official message is not always as definite as it should be. For example, the Director-General of Health keeps urging people to submit to a test if they feel they should, while in the next breath saying that to ease pressure on the system, only people showing clear symptoms of the virus should seek to be tested. Such mixed messaging is hardly conducive to encouraging people who feel they should, to go for a Covid19 test. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health keep giving assurances about the availability of testing opportunities that are just not being borne out by the reality of what is happening. 

We have been assured that everyone entering managed isolation or quarantine is subject to testing on days 3 and 12 of their isolation. That seems a reasonable position, yet the Minister of Health told Parliament earlier this week that the day 3 test was not mandatory. This was despite earlier assurances from the Director-General in early June that “from today, everyone in managed isolation will be tested twice for Covid19.” Indeed, as Newshub has revealed, it now appears thousands of persons in isolation and quarantine have not been subject to day 3 tests, even though it has been the day 3 tests that have revealed the majority of positive cases. And we all know of the delays there have been in testing those border control and other personnel involved in managing the isolation and quarantine process. 

Belatedly, in just the last couple of weeks the Cabinet decided that all such personnel should be routinely tested. But, as Radio New Zealand revealed earlier this week, the new border testing regime has only just been finalised and is still at least a fortnight away from being put in place. This is despite assurances from the Prime Minister over six weeks ago in early July that “frontline workers at the border” were “getting regularly tested”, and Cabinet having ordered at the end of July that testing for all border and isolation personnel be mandatory. 

The question that arises from all these inconsistencies is where does the truth lie? On the face of it, it appears the public has been spun a line by senior Ministers and officials that they now are admitting has not been borne out by reality. What is not so clear is whether there has been a deliberate policy of obfuscation initiated at the highest levels to overcome the shortcomings that have become apparent, and reassure the public that all has been well; or, whether the fault lies with inadequate and inaccurate information about what actually has been happening in the testing space being reported to those in control. 

Either way, it is a poor although not unexpected reflection on the Minister of Health’s supervision, and the role of the Minister of Managed Isolation, Megan Woods. Minister Hipkins is simply over-burdened – already serving as Leader of the House, Minister of Education and Minister of State Services. It is sadly now clear that he just does not have the time to do justice to the Health portfolio and the extraordinary demands dealing with Covid19 has imposed, as well. And, after a promising and energetic start, Minister Woods seems to have run out of steam, so much so that she has almost disappeared from public view. The consequence has been that the integrity of the testing system, so much at the heart of our Covid19 response, has been severely compromised, leading to the establishment of a new, separate task force to review what has been going on at the border and with the testing process. 

The Prime Minister has correctly made clear her disdain for New Zealand yo-yoing in and out of lockdowns every time there is an outbreak of community transmission. Short of acquiescing to the virus being a fixture in the community, something that she has thankfully never advocated or had on her agenda, the major response tool left open to the country in the absence of a vaccine has to be a credible testing regime at the border and in the community to identify outbreaks of the virus as they occur, backed up by robust isolation and quarantine regimes for those identified with the virus. 

The blunt reality is that despite the herculean efforts of those involved in conducting and processing tests, and those managing the isolation and quarantine systems, our Covid19 testing regime is currently the weak link in our response chain, at the very time we need it to be at its strongest and most emphatic. 

Ministers’ simple and overriding responsibility now is to make the testing system work, and to stop the spin and prevarication.  

 

 

 

During difficult political times in the 1960s former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson observed ruefully that “a week is a long time in politics”.  Our Prime Minister could be forgiven for thinking similar thoughts at the moment, as she reflects upon recent events in New Zealand.

Barely a week ago, New Zealand was basking in the perceived glories of having no recorded cases of community transmission of Covid19 for over 100 days; a border control and quarantine system that was picking up and testing everyone coming into the country to ensure they were Covid19 free before being allowed to join the general population; a Parliamentary Opposition that seemed all at sea having just undergone its third change of leader since May; and a government seemingly cruising sedately towards re-election by a large margin in an election due in just over five weeks.

Across the country normal pre-Covid19 life had pretty much resumed. Major sports events were up and running with large crowds mixing and mingling closely together as they enjoyed the spectacle. Business was getting back to normal with domestic tourism and the hospitality sector reporting encouraging responses from New Zealanders, almost but not quite making up for the loss of international visitors, and there was increasing talk of travel to the Pacific being possible within just a few months.

Overall, New Zealanders were feeling positive that we had dodged a proverbial bullet. Mocking comparisons were being made to the plight of other countries still struggling with the worst of Covid19, and we thanked ourselves and our government that we were not like Victoria, and that we had followed the “go hard, go early” slogan to become Covid19 free, even though in reality we had done neither.

The discovery of community transmission in Auckland not only rocked the smug complacency coming from the top down and affecting all of us, but also raised blunt, difficult questions that drew uncomfortable answers about how well the “team of five million” had actually been doing. It turns out the border control programme was not watertight after all, with personnel associated with the new arrivals not being tested at all, even though they were being potentially exposed on a daily basis to the virus. And the level of community testing was nothing like the government had led us to believe.

We still do not know how this new outbreak was initiated, bringing into question whether we were ever Covid19 free in the first place, let alone for the 102-day period the government was so proud of. Now, Auckland is back in Level 3 lockdown; major sports and cultural events have been cancelled; regional travel restrictions have returned; businesses and schools are closed once more, and the uncertainty we hoped was behind us has returned. The government has even been forced to defer the election for at least four weeks.

The triumphal march to glory that the election campaign was supposed to be for the government has abruptly stopped; the Opposition has a new spring in its step, although there is still a mighty lot of ground for it to make up to become competitive. For the first time, a hitherto sympathetic media has started asking hard questions about the now obvious policy and administrative failures, and the Prime Minister and her key Ministers are looking a little rattled.

The change in the country’s Covid19 fortunes has been unexpected and abrupt. The impact of that on public opinion is, however, a little more difficult to judge. While public confidence has undoubtedly been shaken over the last week, and compliance with the new rules appears less immediate and thorough than during the earlier lockdowns, it is not yet clear whether people will blame the government for what has happened, or whether they will accept the apparent return of Covid19 as something that was bound to happen, despite the Prime Minister’s earlier boast that we had “eliminated” the virus.

While the election remains strongly Labour’s to lose, whether it turns into something close to a photo-finish, or remains considerably more sedate, will depend on what happens next, and just as importantly, how that is managed.  So far, the government has relied on the powerful media images of the Prime Minister and Ministers Hipkins and Woods, aided and abetted by the ubiquitous Dr Bloomfield, to present an image of calm reassurance and confidence that all was under control. This week’s revelations of process and policy failures dent that somewhat, and the question will now be whether the media, in particular and the public by extension, will be as willing to accept uncritically that smooth talk in the future.

If “a week is a long time in politics”, nearly nine weeks until the election is an eternity. For Labour, it will be a daily grind of watching and checking everything and keeping its fingers crossed like never before, while employing its spin tactics as comprehensively as ever, but with perhaps more acknowledgement of fallibility. For National, there will be the scent of hope of more things going wrong for it make capital from, and the possibility that translates into an increase in its political support. For the voter, it is all likely to be extremely tedious, having to put up with all the new claims and counterclaims, while confronting the daily reality of still doing all we can to remain Covid19 free.

If there is a silver lining to this dark and obstinate cloud, it might just be that for whatever varying reason our collective complacency is now at an end.  The hope has to be that there is a now renewed vigilance about dealing with Covid19 but making sure we get all the details of the response right this time.

 

The return to lockdowns is devastating news, on a variety of fronts. 

From the health perspective there must now be the deep worry that despite all the steps taken during the earlier lockdowns and the border restrictions and quarantines, there is community transmission of the Covid19 virus in New Zealand after all. Just a few days ago we were celebrating the achievement of 100 days without any community transmission here and basking a little in the envy of the world for our achievements. How quickly our national mood has shifted from that to anxiety about how widespread and established the virus may have become here, and whether it can be effectively contained. The strategy which has served us so well to date of suppressing the virus until such time as a vaccine becomes readily available now faces fresh challenges and questions. 

Yet our resilience remains such that we know we are up to whatever lies ahead, and that we will face up to it, with determination and commitment, albeit with perhaps not the same naïve enthusiasm we saw at the start of the earlier lockdowns. The hardest thing to take may be that, despite the steady, but soft, warnings from the government and the health authorities that a fresh outbreak in the community at some stage could not be ruled out and was indeed inevitable, we had succumbed to a level of community complacency that Covid19 was a problem for other countries but no longer New Zealand. Now, after 64 days of comparative normality and no real restrictions, other than at the border, we face the brutal shock of maybe having to start all over again. 

Families, having just seen things return to a familiar model, now face the prospect of having to keep children home from school or pre-school once more. Students anticipating either senior school or university exams later in the year face new uncertainty about their course prospects for the balance of the year. Businesses that just hung on through the earlier lockdowns now contemplate losing customers and clients and working out how to make do all over again. There will be a number for whom the struggle will too great this time, especially if the new lockdowns are prolonged, meaning the numbers of closed shops and offices already looking obvious on the high streets of towns and cities up and down the country will continue to grow. 

Complicating matters is that the wage subsidy scheme which has helped many businesses to survive so far expires at the start of September. The recovery funding announced in the Budget is already mostly committed, with only some of the special Covid19 contingency fund still available for allocation. While the state of the balance sheet allows the government some scope for further borrowing to fund the recovery, that capacity is not unlimited, and the government may find it a little more difficult to respond as generously as it has previously. 

The final quarter of 2020 was already shaping up as a challenge for the economy as the full impact of the slowdown brought on by the earlier lockdowns hit home, and businesses find they can no longer afford to keep staff once the wage subsidies end. A return of Covid19 in the community just makes that future picture all that much bleaker. 

Our present predicament is perhaps best summed up by words uttered by President Kennedy around the time of the Cuban missile crisis: “We sometimes chafe at the burden of our obligations, the complexity of our decisions, the agony of our choices. But there is no comfort or security for us in evasion, no solution in abdication, no relief in irresponsibility … for it is the fate of this generation to live with the struggle we did not start, in a world we did not make. But the pressures of life are not always distributed by choice.” 

Frustrated or angry as we might feel that we have not yet tamed Covid19 after all, we have no credible option but to continue the struggle. That is the burden of our current obligation which we cannot ignore. 

But it is no excuse for unquestioning compliance. While we should have the confidence to assume our leaders know what they are doing, and are acting in our best interests, we should not flinch from asking questions to which we should expect proper answers. Of course, we should be seeking reassurance while holding those responsible to proper account for their commitments and actions. That, after all, is the essence of the implicit compact between leaders in a democratic society and the general populace. 

Above all this looms the scheduled 2020 election. The political parties will, on an equal footing, need to determine collectively whether that should proceed as scheduled, or be deferred for a few months. Postponing elections in a free society is a massive step that should only be contemplated in the most extreme of cases, and only then with political support across the spectrum, not just the whim of the government of the day. Such a momentous decision should be founded on what is best for the country, not what suits any particular party’s political convenience. In the meantime, it behoves all political parties not to seek to make any form of political capital out of the country’s new plight, but to work together fully and constructively to address the challenge. 

2020 has so far been a year of shattered dreams and previously unimagined harsh new realities for many New Zealanders. We do not yet know whether the current outbreak of Covid19 is but an inconvenient short-term blip, that will soon pass, or something far more serious and substantial. All we know is we must address it – thoroughly, calmly and rationally, without letting either petty points-scoring or excessive emotionalism get in the way.  

Cynical and disconcerting as his comments may appear to be, Labour and advertising guru Sir Bob Harvey is probably correct when he says that Labour does not need to campaign to win this year’s election. By taking the position that managing the Covid19 response is more pressing than the looming election, the Prime Minister has in reality turned the election into a referendum on the government’s handling of the pandemic, rather than a genuine contest of ideas between competing political parties. And in view of the high levels of support for that being recorded by the opinion polls that is likely to be a winning strategy.

It is often said that the power of incumbency hands a huge advantage to governing parties come election time. They are, after all, the ones in power with the resources at their disposal to make things happen, whereas the Opposition parties, no matter how well organised, presented or resourced, are just another group of politicians craving political office and making dramatic promises accordingly. An incumbent, presenting a “business as usual” approach, always looks in control and on top of things, and therefore comes across as more reassuring to the public, than an ambitious, pestering Opposition, desperate for office. So, as Sir Bob observes, if a government is in that position it makes absolute sense for it to play the continuity and business as usual cards as boldly as they can. 

So far all the big promises this election cycle have come from the National Party. Some of its infrastructure promises are bold and uncosted aspirations rather than likely realities at this stage. That is what could normally be expected, but in the current environment there is a risk of their looking too grandiose and dramatic, compared to the government’s so far more pared back Covid19-centric approach. While New Zealanders should properly be concerned about what is on offer for the future of the country, it appears the country is still too seared by the Covid19 experience of recent months to want to take big visions seriously. 

This caution is reinforced by the situation in Victoria, and now statements from the Director-General of Health and the public health eminences that there will be a recurrence of community transmission in New Zealand at some stage. Once again, the cautious “better the devil you know” motto seems to be the one finding favour with the public, to the government’s advantage, but so long as nothing goes wrong. 

With just over six weeks to the election, and Parliament about to be dissolved, the government’s focus, as its first priority, will be managing the situation till then. And they would be mad not to be so focussed – after all governments want to be re-elected. The Prime Minister and her senior Ministers have developed prudent Covid19 control personas over the last few months, leaving them looking focused and assured (and in some cases, more than a little relieved to have this as their priority ahead of things like Kiwibuild, and Auckland light rail, where their record has been much less spectacular). To paraphrase the Prime Minister’s own 2017 slogan, they know they can do this. 

In the circumstances, aided and abetted by its own dramas, the National Party looks leaden and flat footed by comparison. Its policy announcements so far look contrived and a little hard to believe. It is a soul-destroying position to be in, but the Leader of the Opposition has no alternative but to soldier on and hope to build on the positive personal progress she has been making in the opinion polls. 

The biggest risk to Labour’s re-coronation cruise comes not from other political parties, but from external circumstances. Just as a virus that came from nowhere has proved to be an unexpected boon for a previously struggling Labour Party, fresh unforeseen events could yet disrupt the electoral cycle in a more unpredictable way. The government will be keenly aware of these risks, both to the country as a whole, and its reputation in particular if anything goes awry in the next few weeks. That is why there will be no movement before the election on matters such as freeing up borders with either the Cook Islands or any other Covid19 Pacific state before the election. Nor will there be any movement on letting in foreign students, or any reduction in current border control and quarantine rules. 

The last thing the government wants before the election is community transmission of Covid19 occurring here, let alone any suggestions that specific government actions have been the reason for that occurring. Even worse, would be a situation requiring a return to some form of lockdown. The political consequences of such an outcome would be most uncertain, as would the far more serious consequences of Covid19 becoming established in the community.

So, while Sir Bob’s shrewd assessment should be respected and cannot be dismissed, there are risks involved in not having some new policies to unveil at election time, especially if the Covid19 focus somehow gets derailed. Therefore, it might just pay for Labour to have a couple of policy aces up its sleeve, nevertheless, just in case.

On the face of it, National’s new policy of allowing people to withdraw up to $20,000 from their Kiwisaver accounts to put towards a new busines venture looks attractive, especially as the daunting task of recovery from the economic ravages caused by Covid19 gets underway. If it works, it could certainly encourage more business investment, increase activity and jobs, and aid the process of recovery.

But as many analysts have pointed out it is also extremely risky, given the high rate of new business start-ups that fail, even at the best of times, and could see people losing substantial amounts of their Kiwisaver investments, to their personal longer-term detriment. Judith Collins’ counter that people should have a choice whether to invest their Kiwisaver funds with a funds manager, or in a new business venture has some merit, but misses the fundamental point of Kiwisaver.

What she describes as money “put aside for a rainy day” is far more than that. Kiwisaver is a savings scheme for a person’s retirement, both to reduce their long-term reliance on New Zealand Superannuation and to enable them to enjoy a decent standard of living as they grow older. The idea was that everyone joining Kiwisaver had the equivalent of a dedicated fund where their investments were locked away until they reached 65.

An early concession was made to allow first home buyers to withdraw a small proportion of their Kiwisaver investment to go towards the cost of a deposit on a house. However, successive Labour- and National-led governments have properly resisted many other calls for people to be able to access their Kiwisaver funds early, for matters such as student loans repayments or unexpected health costs. In so doing, they have recognised the long-term nature of Kiwisaver investments, so that individuals get to enjoy the benefit of a substantial retirement lump-sum pay-out at the age of 65.

Retirement income policy has been a vexed issue since the fourth Labour Government introduced a 25% tax surcharge on superannuitants’ additional income above $5,200 a year in 1984. From that time, and through most of the 1990s, superannuation policy was a political football kicked back and forward between the Labour and National parties. Both wanted a viable long-term solution to the rising costs of New Zealand Superannuation as the population lived longer, while, at the same time, not incurring the wrath of older voters in the process.

Eventually, in 2000 Sir Michael Cullen established the Superannuation Fund (popularly known as the Cullen Fund) to pre-fund a portion of likely future superannuation costs by setting aside a fixed sum each year for the Fund to invest and build up. That established a measure of stability in superannuation policy and brought the government time in terms of rising future costs of New Zealand Superannuation due to an ageing population. The establishment of Kiwisaver by Sir Michael in 2007 as a voluntary retirement savings scheme was the next step in making the long-term costs of looking after older New Zealanders more sustainable.

However, the new equilibrium was short-lived. In response to the Global Financial Crisis in 2009 Sir John Key’s National-led government suspended the annual contributions to the Superannuation Fund and did not resume them during its entire term of office. Meanwhile, projected long-term superannuation costs were continuing to rise, leading Labour in Opposition in 2014 to propose gradually lifting the New Zealand Superannuation entitlement age from 65 to 67. Yet when the National-led government introduced legislation in 2017 to increase the age to 67 over a 20- year period, the Labour Party opposed it. It was reminiscent of the superannuation game-playing of the 1980s and 1990s all over again.

Today, the current Labour-led government’s position is that the age of entitlement will not be shifted above 65 years, and that the issue is only being discussed because National cut contributions to the Superannuation Fund back in 2009. National, on the other hand, remains committed to its 2017 position of raising the age to 67 over 20 years. The upshot is that no-one under about 45 years of age can plan their futures with certainty.

It is generally accepted that the advent of Covid19 has led to dramatic changes in the way governments the world over will need to respond to the new economic and social challenges now facing their countries. A new sense of innovation and flexibility will be required. Doing things the way they always have been done is not likely to work anymore.

However, no matter what new dynamics Covid19 imposes, some things will not change. Meeting the rising costs of superannuation will be one of them because populations will continue to age. This is hardly the time to be further weakening the mechanisms, like Kiwisaver, already in place to help people save for their retirement. If anything, the incentives need to be increased, and Kiwisaver made a compulsory savings scheme for everyone entering the workforce, so that they can plan their futures with certainty throughout their working careers, regardless of the external uncertainties. Kiwisaver is a critical part of that process and is most certainly not just a piggy bank to be raided on “a rainy day” as National is now proposing.   

The 52^nd Parliament is hurtling towards an inglorious end. It will finish in just over two weeks and will be dissolved shortly thereafter on August 12 in preparation for the September 19 general election. It has been a dramatic term – dominated by huge tragedies, from the Christchurch Mosques massacres, to the Whakaari White Island eruption, and now Covid19.

But in recent weeks the focus has been more on what many would describe as farce. The revelations concerning the personal conduct lapses of a number of MPs that led them to stand down have raised many questions about the culture of Parliament, the stresses placed upon MPs, and the responsibility of political parties. But while inappropriate and unprofessional conduct by MPs should never be condoned, no matter their status, the current situation needs to be kept in perspective.

The present number of 20 MPs (at last count) standing down at this election is not out of line with the numbers retiring at previous elections. Historically, New Zealand has had a relatively frequent turnover of MPs – the average length of service is just over six years. Of the MPs elected at the 2014 election, 53 have now either retired or been defeated. Only 26 of the MPs elected at the 2011 election are seeking re-election this year.

So, the turnover of MPs is not the problem – indeed, many would argue that a frequent turnover and refreshing of the House is no bad thing. Others argue for term limits to stop MPs serving for too long, although just as many are surprised to learn that very few MPs serve for more than ten to fifteen years, let alone longer.

Also, the average age of MPs has been dropping over the years, meaning that, consistent with patterns in the wider workforce, MPs are more likely to move on to do other things, as part of a range of career experiences. If anything, the turnover rate for MPs is therefore likely to increase in the years ahead.

But the unusual thing about this year’s crop of Parliamentary departures is the number where the decision to stand aside has been brought about by circumstances relating to personal conduct. During this term, National has been rocked by the scandals involving Jami-Lee Ross (now running as an independent and unlikely to succeed); Hamish Walker and Andrew Falloon. But the problem is not solely related to National. Labour has lost two Ministers for personal conduct lapses: Meka Whaitiri following an altercation with a staff member (although she is seeking re-election as an MP) and now Iain Lees-Galloway, as well as others for incompetence.

Most of the cases have been clear-cut, but there are some aspects of the Lees-Galloway case that are curious. He had been a controversial Immigration Minister, and there had previously been calls for his resignation, especially in the wake of his decision to grant residency to the convicted Czech drug smuggler Karel Sroubek, who had a lengthy criminal record in both the Czech Republic and New Zealand. Had the Prime Minister dismissed him at the time of that incident, there would have been little argument, given the lapse of judgement involved and his admission that he had not read the full file before making his decision.

Yet she did not, and instead backed him strongly. All of which makes the decision to get rid of him now because of a consensual affair with a staff member that ended some time ago and was apparently widely known a little puzzling. It leaves unanswered questions about whether, for example, he used his Ministerial position to the advantage of the staff member. The Prime Minister’s call – after the sacking – for Ministerial Services to investigate whether any official resources had been misused during the affair is also bizarre. Normally, the evidence is gathered first in a serious matter like this, not called for after the event.

Overall, it raises the suspicion that Lees-Galloway’s dismissal was based more on getting shy of a potential embarrassment ahead of the election than a judgment on his personal conduct. The Prime Minister may also have felt she had no alternative, given both the way in which the Leader of the Opposition had raised the matter, and had the previous day dismissed Andrew Falloon. Whatever the reason, it will have further eroded confidence in a political system reeling after recent events.

Nominations to stand for Parliament at this year’s election close on August 21. With dark rumours still swirling from both sides of politics, and the mentality of “gotcha politics” that has become an unwelcome aspect of New Zealand politics in recent years, the daunting reality now is that more scandals coming to light before then cannot, unfortunately, be ruled out.

The period of Matariki, the celebration of the Māori New Year, which began earlier this week, is being celebrated increasingly as an important national event. While many other countries have their own form of New Year celebrations, Matariki is uniquely New Zealand. As such, it deserves special recognition. We already celebrate great annual events from other cultures, such as Diwali and Chinese New Year, which is good, but now is the time to give Matariki the prominence it deserves. 

Yet most of the celebrations around Matariki are locally organised. Usually local communities and councils play their part in putting together local festivities such as fireworks displays or other celebratory events. Unlike Waitangi Day, or even ANZAC Day, the two other uniquely New Zealand special days which we commemorate each year, there is no national occasion organised to celebrate Matariki.

The time has come to change that. Matariki deserves its own special day of celebration and is worthy of a public holiday in its honour. Even though there is a general wariness in New Zealand about creating more public holidays – as the debate a few years ago about ‘Mondayising’ Waitangi and ANZAC Days showed – we are still on the light side of the number of public holidays most countries celebrate. Adding another holiday to celebrate a significant national event is unlikely to bring the economy to its knees as some critics might argue.

In any case, the establishment of a national public holiday to mark Matariki need not entail the creation of an additional public holiday. It could be done by simply replacing an existing public holiday that has become obsolete. An obvious candidate in this regard is the current Queen’s Birthday holiday at the start of June.

As New Zealand culturally diversifies, the celebration of the British Monarch’s birthday, with full military honours and all the trappings besides becomes more and more incongruous. At a time when New Zealand is trying to shake off the final vestiges of its colonial past and assert its identity as a modern Pacific nation nothing can continue to appear more absurd than the annual official celebration of the birthday of a hereditary ruler on the other side of the world. Queen’s Birthday holiday is an occasion whose time has well and truly past, and it should be replaced with an event far more relevant to the lives and world views of contemporary New Zealanders.

Matariki Day would be the perfect substitute for the anachronistic Queen’s Birthday. Occurring at about the same time of year as Queen’s Birthday, Matariki would also have the practical advantage of ensuring that New Zealanders still get a public holiday during the long winter months. The Queen’s Birthday Honours List could easily become the Matariki Honours List, which would be a nice counterpoint to the New Year’s Honours List released in January. And the dwindling pageantry now associated with Queen’s Birthday could be incorporated into the wider celebrations of Matariki, if it be so wished. In short, Matariki has a far more New Zealand ring about it than Queen’s Birthday ever did.

Bicultural New Zealand has been engaged in an often too timid assertion of its national identity for some generations now. Yet while our population has become more diverse, and our absorption of aspects of other cultures more extensive, especially since the 1990s, we have been too slow to move to ensure that our national structures reflect both that emerging diversity and our own bicultural environment. Despite successive Prime Ministers piously acknowledging the inevitability that New Zealand will become a republic, none has done anything to advance that. And notwithstanding Britain’s abrupt casting aside of New Zealand when it wanted to join the European Community in the 1970s, New Zealand has rushed to be near the top of the queue in negotiating a free trade agreement with Britain now that it has decided it no longer wants to be part of Europe after all.  

The time has come for this country to start matching its lofty and bold talk about our progressive and independent identity with some action that shows we take that talk seriously. Continuing the way we are, with no substantive action to follow, will, over time, led to more and more alienation and potential social division. Moving now to replace Queen’s Birthday with the far more relevant Matariki Day would be a simple, but important step forward and a signal that as a country we were genuine in our desire to establish and promote our identity and pride in all facets of what it means to be a New Zealander today.