Okay not quite, but one might think so from the story in the NZ Herald on the statement by Bishops on the Treaty.
The Bishops claim that giving preferential treatment to Maori is effective in addressing huge socio-economic disparities, compared to the failure of policies that treat everyone the same.”
As they have called for claims to “be tested in the light of facts and figures” I would ask what facts they have to back up their assertions that the preferential treatment has worked?
More fundamentally the Bishops state the Treaty is a blueprint for modern New Zealand, creates a partnership, and defines a constitutional relationship.
Dr Brash responded “I don’t underestimate the importance of the treaty, but to imply that it creates some kind of eternal and permanent partnership between two separate bodies is to me not an accurate way of understanding the treaty.”
As more and more NZers will have some Maori descent, the Bishop’s view, in my opinion, can only lead to a Fiji type situation.