Passion and contradiction grip Kiwis

Within a few weeks, the political landscape in New Zealand dramatically changed. The popular Labour government, with prudent economic policies, could boast of low unemployment, a falling crime rate, low inflation, modest interest rates and a budget surplus. Its leader was dominant in the polls with a compliant, if not complacent, backbench.

Why the dramatic reversal, in which the standing in the polls of the National Party, the main conservative party, jumped by more than 20 per cent in two months?

The party elected former Reserve Bank governor Don Brash as its leader. The mild-mannered Brash lacks the parliamentary rough-and-tumble skills and was derided and demonised as elitist and extremist early in his tenure. Somewhat reminiscent of John Hewson.

Recently, he gave a speech attacking special privileges for indigenous Maori New Zealanders. Every conservative leader in opposition - Robert Muldoon in 1975, Jim Bolger in 1990 - has given the same speech. Both became prime minister. This one-nation, colourblind approach is popular, and 80 per cent of Maori never vote National, anyway.

New Zealanders are proud of their policies towards race - even a little smug, especially in comparison with Australians and their treatment of Aborigines.

Dedicated parliamentary seats for Maori were established in 1867, and today there are 20 Maori in parliament.

Not only has NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark apologised to Maori, she has also formally apologised for past treatment of Chinese, Samoans and gays and lesbians.

Successive governments are seen to have created a grievance industry due to the settlement process using the mechanism of the Treaty of Waitangi. This 1840 treaty guaranteed certain rights to Maori. Of course, there were two versions - one in English, the other in Maori. The British had lawyers, Maori did not.

The treaty is seen as the foundation document of New Zealand and was one of the reasons that New Zealand didn't join the Australian commonwealth at the time of federation.

The National Party in government has advanced the process of settling injustices through the treaty. Why does it attack the treaty today?

Opportunism, certainly. But there is substance to Brash's claims. Some Maori have made claims to the radio airwaves, the foreshore and seabed, and special treatment across the board in the name of the treaty.

Good intentions and favours never go unpunished in politics. Politically correct appointments to committees that hand out taxpayers' money have resulted in politically correct decisions that make stunning, often humorous, headlines: gay and lesbian Maori and Pacific Islanders funded by the taxpayer to travel the world to study ways to encourage gay participation in sport; world tours to study hip-hop music and culture; taxpayers' money to study teamwork in darts, and its cultural implications; special funding to tell people how to apply for funding; coffee-making courses at polytechnics.

This rage is about the collapse of common sense. Should we be worried about the word manhole? Is it really sexist? Why have hot cross buns been banned at some kindergartens? Why bother to stop prayers at parliamentary dinners to honour guests?

One recipient of a grant, who had travelled to Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago, and later the US, who spent some time in Paris and Hawaii "chilling out" (in her words) professed amazement at the criticism this attracted. "People are being really bitchy and horrible," she said. "They don't understand I apply for lots of grants and haven't had them all approved."

There is a sense of entitlement at play here. And it is this that infuriates the battlers in Labour's heartland.

Now this is all great fun. But when gang members are paid to take diving courses, then, as Maori, go on to backdate fisheries licences so that they can take thousands of crayfish, something is seriously wrong. Fisheries Ministry officials have declared some remote coastal areas as no-go areas because of potential violence.

These policies, through slack management, have allowed some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders to become media targets. Good schemes and results don't make headlines. A sum of $140million in flood relief to distressed farmers is not as newsworthy as $1000 for someone to attend a hip-hop conference.

Race has always been the stone in New Zealand's shoe. Brash has touched a nerve, and the weekly exposure of excesses cements his case. Meanwhile, Clark is trying to bring some sense back to the debate. It's a conversation New Zealand must have - a conversation that is passionate, but it cannot be a dialogue of the deaf. It must be structured.

The language being used at dinner tables is becoming violent and ugly. At a business luncheon on a recent visit to New Zealand, I was shocked at the venom being spat out at migrants, minorities and "tax bludgers". Then, of course, the payment for the splendid lunch was in cash - no GST, wink wink. The contradiction was lost on my hosts.

Recently, I spoke to five of the eight party leaders in parliament (the Greens have two leaders, a male and a female).

Incidentally, New Zealand has the only elected transsexual MP. She began her career as mayor of a rural town. In parliament, she proclaimed she began as a stallion, became a gelding, then a mayor, and now a local member. Immensely likeable and popular, she has announced her retirement, saying she was better as a "local body" politician.

When I met these leaders, I commended to them the mature, structured approach Australian had taken in its constitutional convention (not the sneaky way the final result was retailed). I was an observer at that convention. How embarrassing for me to admit that we might have something to learn from Australia. Don't worry, it won't happen again.