The week leading up to the Coalition’s first birthday has been particularly challenging, with the largest protest in Parliamentary history and economic attacks from the left and right.
Polls published to-date have shown the three-party alliance retaining the support of voters. But after a full year in office, is the public starting to blame them for New Zealand’s problems?
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his cabinet were sworn into Government on November 27th last year, following almost 45 days of coalition talks.
It has become clear the former business executive made a major error in those negotiations when allowing the Act Party to promote its Treaty Principles Bill throughout the term.
The Bill is seen by many Māori as a beachhead for a broader backlash to their growing status in New Zealand’s political economy, and they have rallied powerful resistance to it.
At least 42,000 people—but possibly more—marched on Parliament this week to show their support for the Treaty of Waitangi and general unhappiness with Crown–Māori relations.
Heat of a hīkoi
Luxon has been painted as the most anti-Māori Prime Minister in modern history, despite entering politics with an intention to preserve the National Party’s strong track record.
His maiden speech bragged about work done at Air NZ to “champion and mainstream te reo and Tā Moko” as well as create career pathways for young Māori and Pasifika.
But former minister, Chris Finlayson told RNZ many in the National Party appeared to have lost touch with its “history and tradition” and were “more concerned about their careers”.
Matthew Hooton, a vociferous critic of the Prime Minister, wrote in a column that Luxon only agreed to the Treaty Principles Bill because he lacked an understanding of political history.
He needlessly conceded to the Act Party and signed himself up the “worst possible option” which enraged Māori while also “bitterly dividing his own party,” Hooton argued.
It is worth noting there’s not yet any evidence in the polls that this is hurting National. The most recent Taxpayers’ Union–Curia numbers showed it was winning support from Act.
David Seymour may have miscalculated his own supporters' appetite to fight a culture war with the economy in deep recession and household budgets under crushing pressure.
Councils should focus on the basics, the Government says, while itself pursuing hopeless constitutional reform which stirs up a huge fight with a fifth of the population.
Seymour put out two press releases about regulation reform on the day of the hīkoi, but I seriously doubt anyone read either of them, and he did not bring them up in Parliament.
What’s the plan?
Which brings us to the other criticism whacking the Government this week: economics.
Voters almost always name the economy among their top issues, and particularly when they are living through the worst recession since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008-09.
The election result was more a rebuke of inflation than anything else. Analysis by the Financial Times found incumbents lost support in every election held this year.
Voters did not seem to care about the incumbents’ political ideology —some were liberal, others conservative—only that they oversaw a period of inflation and must be punished.
The Government’s overarching mission must be to get the economy “back on track” as promised. It is fortunate that inflation has fallen but other metrics have been darkening.
Economists from across the political spectrum this week criticised the Coalition’s policies, offering valid arguments on both sides, though neither was entirely fair.
Robert MacCulloch, a macroeconomics professor, said virtually no progress had been made on any of the key economic issues the Government was supposed to be tackling.
His list was long: Economic growth was stagnant, competition weak, tax system unreformed, regulations not slashed, social investment not started, plan for rising healthcare costs non-existent, fiscal deficit worsening, and the housing supply dwindling.
MacCulloch’s conclusion was that Finance Minister Nicola Willis was a “steady-as-she-goes” policymaker who was unwilling to make the bold actions needed to solve problems.
Hooton echoed this in his own column, complaining the Prime Minister had not articulated an economic policy that could change the growth trajectory.
“Luxon had nothing to offer but some modest yet unaffordable tax cuts and a belief his mere election might motivate an economic boom,” he wrote.
This was a similar accusation made by a group of left-leaning economists who wrote to Willis and Luxon this week, begging them to rethink their plans to dramatically cut spending.
Obsessively balancing the Crown accounts and reducing debt may be a sound fiscal policy, they argued, but it did nothing for the economic wellbeing of the country.
Spending reductions should be suspended and advice should be sought on an economic rationale for fiscal policy choices made in Budget 2025.
The author of the letter suggested increased investment in infrastructure and core services would be a better approach, even if it meant taking on more debt and potentially raising taxes in the future.
Not everything is fiscal
As I said earlier, I think both these critiques don’t fully acknowledge the Government’s economic plan — which will take years to put in place and many more to have an impact.
Willis has been in Antarctica throughout all this, but she would defend her fiscal policy as being a necessary first step to stabilising the economy and creating a solid platform on which to build future growth.
She would likely agree that it was not, in and of itself, an economic growth strategy, and has said publicly she views austerity as a mistake she does not want to repeat.
When the Treasury warned it would downgrade future economic growth forecasts, Associate Finance Minister Chris Bishop said the Government would not be a “slave to a surplus” in any particular year.
This was to say it wants to avoid the austerity doom-loop and won’t cut spending in response to economic downgrades, just as it won't boost spending in response to upgrades.
Keeping spending constant eventually acts as a countercyclical policy by banking surpluses during good times and allowing deficits during downturns.
Labour, when in government, ran a pro-cyclical policy by increasing its spending when the economy boomed and then being forced to cut when it crashed.
Willis has inherited that policy and has begun the process of making it predictable and countercyclical again, in a somewhat Keynesian tradition with National Party characteristics.
But stability alone is not an economic growth plan. Other cabinet ministers have largely been given the job of reinvigorating growth without the help of fiscal stimulus.
The plan goes like this: build better public infrastructure, remove barriers to private developments, reduce regulations and compliance costs, attract foreign and domestic capital investment, and disrupt uncompetitive sectors (banks and supermarkets).
Eventually, this will hopefully encourage private business expansion and grow the economy.
As MacCulloch says, not a huge amount of progress has been made on these goals and the decision-makers may lack the confidence to make big, risky reforms.
But the Coalition does have an economic plan—love or hate it—it just isn’t led by fiscal policy and will take a considerable amount of time to have an impact.
Next, the National Party will need a plan to rebuild Crown–Māori relations, having unnecessarily burned those bridges in the rush to form a coalition.
104 Comments
The present government has approx two years remaining to evidence economic progress pointing towards a future that voters identify as being satisfactory . Given David Hargreave’s column alongside here, that at present doesn’t look that promising. On the other hand the opposition has the same period to evidence the solidity and stability of a coalition of Labour, Greens and TPM and put forward a convincing manifesto in support. That at present doesn’t look that promising either. In two years time then, the electorate may well again be considering the next government on the premise, as well explained on here previously by Chris Trotter, of the least worst prospect. At the present time, in terms of that consideration, would put the current coalition ahead on points.
Interesting because that's exactly what we are going to get if National ignores the voice of New Zealanders, what was it those Daleks said again ? Probably better not put it in print. Probably a good play from ACT, I expect a massive increase in votes for them next election.
The MSM is so biased on this it almost make you sick. I don't watch TV1 news much but I bet they didn't run one of their Polls on the subject, I wonder why ? There is no terrible PR on this as far as ACT is concerned, they already know the numbers for and against it.
There's not much wisdom in the voice of NZrs when they're lead around by the nose for political gain. Let's be honest, parties of the left or the right can easily make up an issue, galvanise the public over it, then wield those people to protest. If the people had a grassroots concern and took it to government, catching them off-guard, then I'd say power to the people. But if politicians leads the people through MSM, alternative media, X or whatever, then no.
The Principles Bill is a perfect example of this. Act didn't even exist when these principles apparently became problematic. Many people so strongly opposed to these principles weren't even alive when this happened. Act didn't seem to mind said principles for their first 20 years of political priorities, then all of a sudden it's a major calamity. Nah, they just saw a lever they could use to pry voters off National and are going to use the people to do it. Act knows they become a 1% party when they're boring and campaign on their core principles so they've turning activist, borrowing a leaf from Winston's book.
Same as TPM whipping up faux outrage and protest against it. It's just a proxy war and the plebs are caught in the middle.
I suspect ACT/DS started to bring this to the forefront because of Labour's co-governance and partnership push during the last three years. If it hadn't been for Labour the Treaty Principal Bill is very unlikely to have emerged.
You'll have difficulty in finding any Treaty principles prior to this Bill. They aren't defined anywhere and only referred to as the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
"It has become clear the former business executive made a major error in those negotiations when allowing the Act Party to promote its Treaty Principles Bill throughout the term."
"...the government says, while itself pursuing hopeless constitutional reform which stirs up a huge fight with a fifth of the population." There's an obvious response relating to the remaining 80% of the population.
Dan, it's apparent why this article should be qualified as "Opinion". You may very well think that however 3x as many voted for ACT than TPM. An October 2024 poll by Curia and commissioned by the Taxpayers' Union found that 45% supported the Treaty Principles Bill, 25% opposed it, and 29% were unsure.
Finlayson & Hooten are both irrelevant & compromised.
Unlike them, I'm not being paid by anyone to say anything.
A colourblind democracy is the foundation of a strong economy We now know who bust NZ's economy: the Judiciary wrote a Communist-style Constitution without Consulting
You've been brainwashed I fear. I think you'll find the most prosperous times most countries have seen economically came from periods of racial domination actually. Emancipating slaves was never good for the economy, suddenly you had to pay wages to get work done. And you'd struggle to find a correlation between prosperity and democracy with the rise of the Asian Tigers from the 60s. Then there's China, Saudi, UAE etc doing just fine with neither colourblindness nor democracy.
Once you hold up such ideals, you have to start wondering why we give people born here favourable rights creating a two-tier system that discriminates against would-be immigrants, or why we have borders at all. I think John Lennon had thoughts on this. Maybe Lenin too.
Could you provide a link to the Oct 2024 Curia poll you reference? Two sources I found said there was a drop in support from the same time last year. One example on facts.nz showed - 46% support/25% oppose, 29% unsure (was 3.3:1, 60%/18%, 22% in October, 2023, so a 14 percentage point drop in support with half (7) going to oppose and half (7) going to unsure)
You wouldn't want to be selective about what facts you choose to report.
This is tagged as opinion! It is my opinion.
Whichever way you cut it, Luxon made a mistake. If the bill is good/popular he should have promised to pass it into law, if it is bad/unpopular he should not have allowed it to be major distraction for more than a third of the Parliamentary term.
Hard to see that not being a mistake, either way.
Seymour is like a dog with a bone, and was insistent on having this Bill debated in parliament. Luxon has always been clear that National will not support the Bill past the first reading, and therefore the Bill will not become Law. Remember the coalition negotiations going on for 45 days and the media baying for a decision and "why is it taking so long"? It would have been a mistake by Luxon if he had not formed a coalition and we then had to go back to another general election, which could have lost votes, and then potentially back to a left wing government.
Sure, but there's room for there being another bottom line policy that Luxon wouldn't accept, so offered this one as a sweetener to get things over the line. Luxon ultimately would've been happy to ignore all of Act's headline policy, so it doesn't make sense he would voluntarily sign up to anything.
Why this one? And why now?
We could be having a discussion on whether parliament needs an upper house, or on whether we should become a republic, or whether we need a new flag.
None of it needs to happen right now when the priority is stopping businesses going under and supermarkets gouging. Stuff like this shouldn't even be in the top 10 right now. Once the economy is "rock star" again, sure, go for gold. When everyone is down in the dumps it's a terrible time to contemplate who we are as a country and where we're going.
I don't think it is a mistake. Its good politics. A silent majority will want all Kiwi's to be treated the same in 2024 regardless of what was promised to one specific group in the 1840's. The minority may be loud but this doesn't mean there votes count for more. One vote one person.
National knows this so they deliberately ran with Seymore's bill. In 2026 NZ will have a choice between a National/Act/NZ first govt and Labour/Greens/TPM. Those middle class swing voters will swing to National.
You can't be serious. There scantly exists a majority of any kind of thought in NZ. A good slab of NZ's population wasn't even born here and don't hold any values you might recognise as "kiwi". If you want equality for the races, be prepared for the news to be split into sections in Chinese, Samoan, Hindi, Tagalog and then an English bit at the end. And to be told you have to like it and learn these languages, because that's equality.
When you dig, these people who want everyone treated the same actually want assimilation where everyone acts like a "classic kiwi", speaking English on the bus, wearing a singlet and wrestling a sheep. They don't want to give equal value to other people's cultures.
Totally agree, Luxon is pursuiing his personal views and forgetting democracy is supposed to reflect the views of the voters and if a Govt cannot convince voters of the relevance and improvement their policies will achieve they will discover like ardern and sunak and shortly German chancellor Scholtz what happens at election time. Interesting that in the UK a petition for a General Election because Starlin and his rabble of incompetents have reneged on lamost all election promises and are facing a petition currently sporting almost 1.7 signatures - a message he will ignore , but at his peril - Luxon take note.
What this clearly shows is that there is no way that anyone should be voting for the Left at any election in NZ!
The chaos and lunacy if TPM ever had any say whatsoever.
They stand for anarchy and they are the most radical racist party ever
unfortunately several of the previous governments have caused this dissent by pandering which we are now seeing the effects of this.
Christchurch always ticks along ok!The effects that business and households are feeling at the moment was caused by the the over reaction to Covid where Billions were squandered unnecessarily by Ardern and Robertson who were both totally out of there depth.
This government were left with a hell of a mess to try and clean up as well as try to turn around a flagging economy caused by the RB holding the OCR far too long.
I can't stand the way he starts everything with "Hey listen". And his passive aggressive BS answer to every question "well listen, what I've been saying very clearly..." while most certainly not answering the question very clearly at all. He may be "wealthy and sorted", but he's also so hollow that owls could roost in him. They probably do.
He's very much your corporate drone type with some additional media training. Never answers a question, little charisma or charm. "What I can say is....." Having said that, I'd still go for him over Hipkins at this point. My point is he's not an impressive operator.
Bit of a paucity wasn’t it. All Labour could offer was Hipkins and National ditto in Luxon. In either case who else was there and that in itself identifies something of a problem with the overall calibre of NZ’s politicians on offer. With Luxon though there is a bit of leeway. To arrive at parliament and by the end of your first term, end up as PM is unheralded. If he had first gone through at least a couple of terms as a mp it would have become as apparent as it has now that Luxon is not a natural politician. Now outside of politics that is hardly an unattractive attribute but such shortcomings can only be disadvantageous to any political party as far as effective leadership. Would reckon this coalition has presently enough in its favour to be returned in 2026 but would not be at all surprised to see Luxon, having had enough, step aside before 2029.
You'll note around the world political parties are being captured by the sorted and successful. In the past decade or so where things have moved towards Climate and equity (or "woke") there's an existential threat to many who have made their coin doing things that are perhaps not flavour of the month. So now they're elevating themselves to our political systems to protect their kin. Can't really blame them, they're just looking out for themselves. But why do people vote for them? They're utterly unrelatable to 95% of the populace and clearly they're not there to help the underclass thrive. That people believe Trump cares for the mine workers to any extent that runs beyond helping his mates that own the mines baffles me.
20 years ago it seemed common wisdom to keep "big business" as far from policy as possible. If the head of BP ran for PM you'd smell a rat. Now we're welcoming them as beacons of success without recognising they have motives.
42,000 outside of parliament- that's less than 1% of the country. About the same size as a Healthcare protest in Dunedin! Much less than the 150000 who flocked to Auckland to see Coldplay. Incidently, Chris Martin, he's a really nice guy, but he should stay out of New Zealand politics.
I’d love interest.co.nz to have a poll of readers and support/opposition to the Treaty bill. Acknowledge the limitations with a small sample and the group not being representative of the general population.
Overwhelming it is critical in the nzherald social media but supportive in restricted ‘premium content.’
The Treaty was a signed agreement by the Crown (representing England and settlers etc) and Maori chiefs (representing Maori).
If you want to agree changes to the Treaty, both those parties would surely have to agree to the changes. That's just basic legal stuff. So, in today's society, the Govt would have to agree the changes, with, say, all iwi chairs.
Now, if you want a poll, or a referendum, or whatever - then have one for Maori and one for non-Maori. If the polls agree, then you have a meaningful mandate for change (or not). If they disagree then the agreement stays as is.
2 polls would be an absolute disaster. You may as well just come out and say "there are 2 types of NZ citizens, Maori and non-Maori". At this point we are already in a situation where significant portions of Maori people have told their fellow citizens they do not see them as equals. Maori are not winning this debate, they are laying the foundation for a far more catastrophic defeat.
This whole situation is going nowhere good (ethno-nationalism very rarely ever does).
Equal rights for all citizens is a tough sell, but it sucks the least out of all the other options in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religion society.
The Treaty was signed by two parties and the principles were worked up with the support of the Crown and Maori. Both parties need to agree to any changes. Now, perhaps if one of those parties hadn't repeatedly gone back on their word, stole land at gunpoint (and then got rich off it), and generally treated Maori like second-class citizens for well over 150 years, things would be different now. Perhaps Maori would be open to doing a different deal if ownership of all of the stolen land was returned to them, with a dividend to cover rent arrears, for example? That would probably feel more like a renegotiation of terms!
This is debating legalese while Rome is ransacked.
The principles under which the treaty operated no longer exist and simply cannot coexist alongside other core foundational assumptions for running a modern liberal democratic state. Sometimes you pick the least bad option to prevent disaster, life isn't fair unfortunately.
Seymour will ride this issue to the top because he understands this, the vast majority of politicians do not (certainly neither leader of the major parties).
The longer this goes on the more NZers are getting the message: when it comes to Maori issues, there is "them" and "us". Nothing good will come from this.
Great, sounds like the two parties to the Treaty need to get together and work out (i) how one party should redress the other party for persistent breaches of the Treaty, and (ii) to set out what the Treaty means in the modern day. Maybe we could set-up some kind of joint tribunal to define some principles, and work out some reasonable settlements for breaches?!?
You mean the exact thing that led to the current situation? Just better and harder? Follow the votes, Seymour is. He isn't running on this or leading ACT to their best electoral outcomes ever because this is a losing issue for him.
Too many people can't hold these ideas on their heads at once:
1. Maori got screwed.
2. The treaty is not a functional political document for 21st century NZ.
3. Seymour's position is intellectually and morally coherent, as well as immensely practical and appealing to the median NZer.
Hence why ACT is running rings around then and will continue to do so.
The 'current situation'? We are working through it, it's messy. Some govt agencies have made some stupid policy choices while trying to do the right thing, true, but Seymour looks set to do maximum damage here. My view is that people will start to realise that Seymour doesn't give a crap about equal rights, he is gunning for the treaty because it helps to stop big corporates destroying our country to extract rent.
My view is that people will start to realise that Seymour doesn't give a crap about equal rights, he is gunning for the treaty because it helps to stop big corporates destroying our country to extract rent.
Incredibly wishful thinking, dare I say ivory tower style thinking.
Seymour is offering something to NZers no other politician is. Populism 101. And he's lucky enough that what he's offering is not only reasonable but also morally and ethically defensible.
The attempted pivot to "we need the treaty to defend against corporations" stinks of desperation at best and comes across as extremely duplicitous at worst because everyone knows that isn't what it is about.
But we will never agree here, I would just buckle up and prepare for ACT to go from strength to strength electorally on this. There is no bad publicity for them on this issue because the "treaty principles" being proposed are really just the core fundamental assumptions non-racinated enlightment liberal democracies live by.
Seriously, it is blindingly obvious that Seymour is a stooge - his job is explicitly to take down barriers to corporate exploitation of our human and natural resources. Everything he does and stands for tells us that this is true. All the money backing him tells us it's true. It also explains his many contradictions (e.g. on property rights).
This is just your bias, JFoe. Step back and realise that, even when we disagree you normally have a reasonable stance but this is veering sharply into conspiracy think.
Tbh I disagree with ACT/Seymour about most things (certainly economically). EXCEPT the treaty stuff where he is clearly philosophically correct in his position. People are complex and Seymour certainly comes across as sincere in his beliefs here, can argue them well, and always remains poised in the discussions. Which can't be said for the other side on this subject. (See your comment as an example).
The irony is that Seymour will get his referendum, it will pass, then support for ACT will tank as no-one really wants the vast majority of their other policies (which is basically neo-liberalism on crack).
The real question is how long it will take the left to realise they've crippled themselves on this and pivot. Sadly, I suspect it will take the actual referendum to take the question out of their hands for them to give up on it. But it will be a blessing in disguise for them electorally as their platform minus the "2 types of NZer" stuff is far more popular with the median voter.
Listen to his Q&A interview. He is asked what advantages Maori get from the Treaty. All he can say is that they get consulted on developments and this holds back business. His goal is simply to remove that. Bizarrely, by falling back on the agreed settlements, some iwi (Ngai Tahu for example) will probably come out stronger. He's a stooge.
He can keep his supporters happy harping on about equal rights for everyone. But the treaty is not a bill of rights. Nobody on either side had much rights back then, apart from royalty.
What extra "rights" settlements afford are tied to the ownership of stolen land, or are generally attempts to equalize health and educational outcomes.
Sure he is.
Really is a marvellous treaty isn't it. Simultaneously:
1. Gives Maori the right to cogovernance
2. Has no advantages for Maori
3. Protects NZ against corporate exploitation
And now, apparently, will strengthen some iwi when it ends. They must be giddy and supporting Seymour wholeheartedly!
Schrodinger's treaty right here. Anything it can't do?
The reality is that the treaty and it's place in NZ has become an ideological project for a small portion of the electorate pursuing goals for ideological reasons.
The evershifting reasons created for its importance are just making it easier and easier for people to see it's all BS and about the pursuit of an ideology most people simply do not want.
I'm betting the Maori rolls will be lost over this as well. Like I said in an earlier comment, Maori and their ideologue Pakeha supporters on this issue are setting themselves up for a far greater defeat because they dismiss others views and are utterly convinced they are right and could bring people around of only there was more "education". And so, of course, anyone taking the other side of this electoral bet is a "stooge" or "racist" or whatever. Same old failed playbook that worked in the 2010s but some haven't caught up that we live in a very different world.
The shamelessness supporters like yourself and others continually attempt to shift the discussion around whatever buzzwords you think will get the support you need is a disgrace, frankly. Luckily levelheaded NZers see through it.
And then when people support a clear, principled stance like Seymour has taken they must be a "stooge". Textbook.
Great discussion, this is clearly out of the American playbook. The worst thing that could happen to Seymour would be if his bill passed and this whole issue was resolved in some magical way that left everyone happy. He will bang this drum for ever because it is extremely popular with a large and growing section of the population.
I also agree with Jfoe, I do not think Seymour cares even the slightest about the moral good of this approach. I don't think he even wants it to pass. This is modern politics, the hard right bang the drum over issues like this so they can enrich themselves. The left get stuck (or choose to) defending a losing issue instead of focusing on working class issues as their own version of populism.
As for whether an agreement offering concessions to one type of person over another is morally or democratically viable, the state of ever growing wealth disparity based on contract ownership shows it anything is possible. It's just how it's framed. Growing wealth concentration of the ownership class is far more of a threat to any working class person than the treaty, yet it's globally accepted.
E-Can appointed Maori representatives that are unelected plus Maori ability to have elected representatives gives Maori an advantage as would appointed councilors, when the treaty was signed conquest was the accepted rule as Maori practiced and Maori Chiefs understood this was leading to the elimination of Maori making the treaty a protection for their survivial.
I finally got to listen to the interview last night and I was disappointed - with Jack Tame. Tame was clearly trying to bury Seymour with loaded questions. Not one mention of Article 3 and how the other two are impacted by it. It wasn't a balanced interview at all. Seymour went along with it and did an OK job but I feel that he could have pushed back harder. But every time he tried to push back Tame just shut him down. I felt it was an example of media bias in action.
If the media are going to discuss the treaty, they need to discuss ALL of it not just the bits that are used to create division and privilege, because the bit they don't want to talk about undermines everything else that is being done.
JFoe you are normally much better than this. I'm disappointed in you too.
I suspect David is not worried that his bill will fail after the committee process as his aim is a referendum once National crush the bill against public opinion and lead to a significant increase in ACTs vote in 2026 possibly leading to an ACT led coalition and National wonderin what hit them.
Sounds like you're an Act supporter then. Before the last election I was at a table with the local Greens candidate where she gave me a pitch about how people were ready for change and they wanted to roll weak Labour and really get cracking on climate solutions and inequality.
Echo chambers are a dangerous thing. And I'll remind you the Greens continue to poll higher than Act, so you can't dismiss them out of hand without being willing to concede that Act is equally relevant. And I support neither and that lack of support for both has grown over recent years.
See my previous comment. The bill is an attempt by one of the Treaty partners to unilaterally define the Treaty principles. These principles, as you obviously know, were not included in the original Treaty, but were determined by both parties as needed given that the two versions of the Treaty (te reo and english) did not align.
The problem being there is no common understanding upon what the Treaty means. There have been legal judgements made upon an interpretation of it but as we are discovering those interpretations are subject to Parliaments agreement.....and Parliament is selected by ballot.
This appears to me to be an unsolvable conflict unless we change our constitutional arrangements and that would definitely require both widespread public consultation AND a referendum.
You're right on the first count, but what gives Seymour the right to come up with a common understanding? What if TPM were in government and they wanted to pass a Treaty Principles Bill with their version? Would that be OK? Would it be OK with a referendum that supported it?
The only way to legitimately define the principles of the treaty is to start from scratch, with no preconceptions, make it a bipartisan effort and seek contributions from across the spectrum. I suspect if you do that, you'll end up back where we are now with some people happy, some unhappy. But at least if it's bipartisan it can be entrenched such that it won't be repealed at the next change of government.
The most important part of changing constitutional arrangements is a super-majority, as you see codified in almost every constitution in existence. The median voter is a fickle thing and a simple majority doesn't mean anything much in this country, as evidenced by how we swing left and right once or twice a decade depending on the carrots on offer.
" but what gives Seymour the right to come up with a common understanding?"
You propose a false premise...Seymour has the right, as any citizen does, to propose legislation to be debated and voted upon. The issue should not be whether the proposal is legitimate or desirable but rather is there an issue that needs resolution? I would suggest that there is undoubtably an unresolved issue so now we need to determine how that issue(s) is best resolved and that will require further proposals, discussion and negotiation....and that leads to questions of by whom?
But as my posts highlight all of this ultimately relies upon an electorate that largely (not unanimously) supports any proposed outcome as it is the electorate who select those able to vote any such proposal up or down, or at least that is so under our current system of government....that may also change, but again (short of revolution) that also requires electoral support.
Any such proposal may or may not include super majority requirements....time will tell.
Seymour or another Treaty Principles supporting pollie will be PM within ten years based on this issue. Seeing it as anything other than the NZ-Maori strain of the ethno-nationalism sweeping the globe is parochial.
Philosophically, the current defenders of treaty status barely have a leg to stand on. An amusing distraction is finding die-hard "left" wing (left in quotes because ethno-nationalism is at the core of right wing politics) and trying to get them to explain why a 200ish year old document is valid today while something like the 2nd amendment in the USA has lost all relevance due to changing times etc.
History has decisively shown that you dance with ethno-nationalism at your own peril because ethno-nationalism for one group must generate ethno-nationalism in other groups, especially if they share a country.
Already hearing in far right groups globally that "indigenous rights" need to be protect for Europeans in Europe, Hindus in India, Han in China, Zulu in South Africa etc etc. Taiwan was a part of China a lot more recently than the treaty was signed, most Taiwanese are ethnic Han, connect the dots.
Sadly it is the left marching us towards these type of ethnic conflicts in much of the West today, at the turn of the last century it was the right.
Be very very careful what you wish for. Ethnonationalist attitudes are the historical and global norm, liberal democratic ones are not.
You see this is why Te Tiriti needs to be taught in all schools. It wasn’t when we were there and hence we have all this ignorance and talk of referendums.
This could all have been avoided if we were all taught Te Tiriti and the respective parties rights - there will never be any form of referendum on it.
Did you watch the AB/Italy game? The haka was directed at NZ more than the Italian side. I expect that to became an ongoing inclusion.
The treaty was taught at my school (private all boys school) so check your assumptions.
This is the same tired old patronising line used by people who knows they are in a minority position but intend to push through what they want without any broader consultation. "if only we taught people more", "people just don't understand or they'd agree with me" etc.
Never a referendum? How on earth could you believe that considering ACT is doing by far the best it has ever done politically by running on this exact issue? Follow the votes, Seymour is.
I give 2 shits about what the All Blacks think. They are a sports team, I don't go to the black caps for input on taxation rules either.
I'd be prepared to be very disappointed/upset over the next 2-10 years on this issue Te Kooti.
So you are suggesting that Parliament is not sovereign in NZ?.....that could be somewhat problematic as we issue currency, pass laws, tax, provide state services, police the citizenry etc and if Parliament dont govern/administer those things then who does and on what basis?
Parliament is sovereign indirectly by grant of the Treaty, via the Crown. Like it or lump it. It creates a chicken and egg problem if that parliament wants to contemplate the treaty itself though, as it has questionable authority to do so. Much as the UK parliament can't unilaterally disestablish the monarchy that created it.
The UK Parliament can indeed abolish the Monarchy should they so decide.
"The British Parliament theoretically has the power to remove the monarchy due to its principle of parliamentary sovereignty. However, such an action would be complex and deeply impactful but not unprecedented.
In theory, Parliament has the power to remove the monarchy or dethrone a monarch of the United Kingdom, as it is the supreme legislative body in the country. In fact, it happened several times in history, such as the deposition of James II in the Glorious Revolution 1688. It even dared to execute the monarch Charles II in 1649 and declared England a republic, called the Commonwealth. However, in practice, it is highly unlikely that Parliament would do so again unless the monarch commits an abomination such as murder."
https://uollb.com/blogs/uol/can-parliament-remove-british-monarchy#:~:t….
Indeed...so many seem to fail to grasp this. All power resides in the ability to convince the overwhelming majority that the power structure on offer is in their best interests...that dosnt necessarily mean it is fair or right, but rather that the alternative on offer is perceived as worse.
"An amusing distraction is finding die-hard "left" wing (left in quotes because ethno-nationalism is at the core of right wing politics) and trying to get them to explain why a 200ish year old document is valid today while something like the 2nd amendment in the USA has lost all relevance due to changing times etc."
Good point. Hypocrisy at its finest.
build better public infrastructure, remove barriers to private developments, reduce regulations and compliance costs, attract foreign and domestic capital investment, and disrupt uncompetitive sectors (banks and supermarkets)
The first and the last bits of this 'plan' are great. Although making banks and supermarkets competitive will require a lot more than disruption - eg forcibly separating wholesale and retail, and vigorously monitoring wholesale margins (our biggest 'industry' takes a 7% - 8% cut, rain or shine).
But, without a period of Govt fiscal investment and radical changes to tax policy to prevent that investment enriching the few, this 'plan' relies on significantly expanding the private sector balance sheet - aka increasing private sector debt. Remember, over any given period, increases in govt debt + private debt have to overpower the current account deficit by more than enough to cover domestic savings and drive 'growth' (a measure of our annual surplus). Here's the last ten years for reference.
Now, let's break down the problem...
We have seen a structural shift in our current account deficit. We closed our refinery, we are buying more digital services from abroad, tourism has faded, and the era of exploiting ever-cheaper offshore labour appears to be coming to an end. A current account deficit of 5% - 6% of GDP is only compatible with 'growth' and typical savings rates if private debt + govt debt is increasing at around 10% of GDP per year ($42bn).
Our private debt is already 140% of GDP, meaning interest costs are around 9% of GDP (6.4% x 140%). That's about $38bn - or nearly a quarter of total NZ wages and salaries! You cannot move this amount of money from spenders/workers to savers/bank equity holders (aussie banks) without crashing our consumer economy and starting unemployment / low consumer demand doom loops.
No problem, we can just lower interest rates again, like we did 2009 to 2021. Great, let's say we drop the OCR to 2.5% and we get average borrowing costs down to 4.5%. Now, we can get private debt back up to around 160% of GDP before interest costs get high enough (~7% of GDP) to tip us into recession. In today's money, that increase in private debt (20% of GDP) would be around $84bn - enough to keep the economy growing at current settings for 2 - 3 years.
Now, don't worry, we are going to attract foreign investment say the swivel-eyed loons - they will invest in NZ out of the goodness of their hearts and boost our economy, all boats will be floated etc. This is perhaps the most stupid part of the 'plan'. A foreign investment in NZ initially reduces our current account deficit, but the dividends / repayments flowing back offshore add to the current account deficit in future years. Since the 90s, it has been the increasing flow of dividents offshore that has been the main driver of our current account deficit. Offshore investors now hold about $200bn (net) of NZ financial assets. The bigger the pile, the bigger the returns. We think that we pay our way in the world with milk, but our economy increasingly exists to get milked by offshore investors. We go into ever-increasing debts to buy houses, offshore investors extract that cash in rent.
Any plan that doesn't recognise the above isn't a plan. We need to restructure our economy so that we can thrive without relying on (a) private sector debt increases (we maxed those out in the false growth of the 90s and 2000s), and (b) degrading our natural resources to sell primary goods to the world. The irony here is that we have the resources we need to have a fantastic quality of life - we are just using them really badly.
This article is another example of capture of interest.co.nz by the left. I have not read one article on msm where they critically look at why Seymour is pushing ahead with the bill. It's because one group has slowly accumulated more rights and privileges than everyone else based on their ancestry, to the point that it's clearly unfair.
I didn't personally expropriate land in 1860 yet I as a 4th generation New Zealander am being punished through discriminatory access to health, medical school, tertiary grants, housing etc etc. And now the principles as they have been crafted will be used to create a so called partnership, the platform on which co-governance is to be built, that will reduce my voting power away from one person one vote to one person 0.75 vote. It's not fair, its not democratic, it reduces me as a human and will destroy this country. There are a lot of people that support Seymour's bill, yet they have not once been asked, and all coverage in the media has been heaped on the 20-50,000 that took part in the march. What about the half million or so easy out there on the other side.
The worst part of this whole situation in my view is that I believe there is a broad support across the country to address inequalities between richer and poorer NZers. And any groups disproportionately represented in a poorer group would receive a larger share of the support (which is a good thing).
Land taxes in particular seem like a tailor-made solution to square this circle. Tax current landowners more (countrywide), help correct a broken tax system that is unfair in many ways, help put downward pressure on housing prices, fight nimbyism that cripples economic development, spend that money helping poorer Kiwis of any colour or creed.
Instead we seem hellbent on repeating the mistakes of places like South Africa.
The b iggest disparity is between the wealthy and the no so wealthy as is evident across the western capitalistic world were the middle class is being squeezed by inflation and the poorest being ground into poverty all exampled in the USA/Europe/UK were the latter is heading to civil war accelerated by the worst Govt in living memory I think the epoint of no return has already been reached at least in in parts of the above countries the next pahse will be ugly and probably violent.
Whakatiki,
"discriminatory access to health," Can you supply evidence to back this claim? I am old, white and privileged, but i certainly don't back Seymour's bill. This is a huge distraction from the very real economic issues facing NZ. Demographics will strengthen Maori influence as they become a bigger percentage of the population. This has become a very unequal society and that needs to change.
Re the cops parading in gang patches on herald.
It seems to me that in any war you are going to have a few of the troops fall below the standards required.....
Much like rugby I suspect nothing will come of it. Especially as it was a few months ago....
He is a good boy from a good family, he just made a poor decision.
If better economic performance can't be delivered, there may be a lot of pressure on National in general and the PM in particular over the Treaty bill, exerted by MPs looking over their shoulders at the large number of now dissatisfied people who both voted for them and support the treaty bill.
The last poll results suggest a ratio of 2:1 in support even if there are a high proportion of undecided, the questions it asks are not going to go away in the minds of most voters, and it is now finally a public issue rather than being evolved by a closed-ecology technocracy.
The genie isn't going back in the bottle and if you can't give the public one thing, you can try and distract them with another. Maybe.
My personal problem is that I'm being reduced to voting for who I dislike least. The choices seem: the deluded and socially hazardous, the naive and stealthily anti-democratic, the intellectually bankrupt, the morally bereft...
It appears an abject failure, but the debate has shifted the Overton window of public discourse around Maori issues.
We now have a line in the sand and can start to actively roll back some of the ridiculous stuff that was being done in the name of the Treaty. A 3 paragraph generic document from 1840 justifying for example affirmative action, compulsory tikanga training under pain of dismissal, veto rights on developments, veto rights on road names for private developments, priority medical treatment, donations of electromagnetic spectrum, ownership of whales that wash up on beaches etc etc. The list is enormous.
Peters meanwhile is quietly biding his time, and early next year will simply move forwards with deleting references to Treaty principles from legislation. Public attention will have moved on.
Have you ever known Peters to quietly bide his time? Once he's not Deputy anymore he's going to need to rock the boat twice as hard to be heard, and he will. He's not just repealing the principles from legislation though, he's replacing generic clauses with the specific application of the treaty to that law.
Nah he just likes to project that image so people doubt what he's up to behind the scenes. Or at least I think that's how he rolls. He's a master of subterfuge and puppetry. Just look at how he courted the antivax movement to get into parliament then ghosted them once he had his ticket. My [pretty far left] mum will still give weight to everything he says because she got a Gold Card out of him.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.