This year Prime Minister Christopher Luxon chose to steer clear of the Waitangi Day celebrations and confrontations at the Upper Treaty Grounds — he instead went to Ōnuku marae in Akaroa.
People have lots of opinions on this. Some said he was running scared, others that he wanted to distance himself from his pesky coalition partners.
The Prime Minister himself said he wanted to visit various different places where the Treaty was signed, as less than 50 of almost 500 rangatira did so at Waitangi.
Whatever the reason, Luxon got to hear an excellent speech from Ngāi Tahu chairman Justin Tipa.
The iwi leader was mainly talking about the Treaty but his message applies to economic policymaking, as well. He said New Zealand was "not a blank canvas" and that leaders had to combine the existing "strands of society into a workable whole."
“It’s a complex and messy task, but it’s important. Because when there’s an absence of this type of leadership, voices that represent comparatively simpler and shallower viewpoints, begin to shine through,” he said.
“Not because of the strength of their position or mandate, but because they’ve got a simple philosophy that provides simple answers to the complex questions we are inevitably confronted with”.
Minor parties were setting too much of the political agenda—not just on Treaty issues—because major parties lacked a clear vision, he said.
“So instead, we get an ACT Party neoliberal thought experiment, posing as a faux source of moral principle and national unity”.
Instead of retreating into political echo chambers, New Zealanders should focus on incremental gains over “radical revisions” and work to get the basics right.
“We won’t get anywhere if we keep debating which abstract, party-political philosophy to apply to a blank canvas instead of making reasonable refinements to a nation that actually exists”.
Seriously, read the full speech. It is fantastic and isn’t just relevant to Treaty politics.
Don't bother with boogeymen
For example, two economic debates—capital gains tax and asset sales—are brewing ahead of next year’s election, but neither is worth the fight. We don’t need to spend the next two years hyperfixating on these two policies, shouting simple and shallow viewpoints into our respective echo chambers.
First of all, there aren’t many assets to sell. David Seymour told Stuff that asset sales could raise $570 billion, but that’s only if he sold off every single asset on the Crown balance sheet.
That might mean listing the Beehive on Trade Me, finding a willing buyer for State Highway 1, and liquidating the Reserve Bank’s financial assets. It’s not serious.
What could be sold are state enterprises that are already run as commercial businesses such as property valuation firm Quotable Value. TVNZ has been offered as another example, although few investors are looking to buy into the television sector, right now.
Money raised from selling commercial assets could be reinvested in public assets which have a better rate of return at a macroeconomic level. For example, Auckland and Wellington have both sold minority stakes in their airports to invest more in transport and water infrastructure that will allow the cities to grow.
Another sensible asset sale would be allowing Kiwibank to raise capital through an initial public offer on the stock exchange. To its credit, Labour says it may support this.
However, there is a furious ideological opposition to most other asset sales. The Public Service Association has already launched a campaign to oppose the hypothetical sale of Quotable Value some time after 2026 — as if they don’t have bigger fish to fry.
If the left is irrationally allergic to asset sales, the right is bizarrely opposed to a capital gains tax. It is really not clear why, as it is a pretty moderate and sensible policy change.
Perhaps the strongest argument against the tax is that it won’t raise much revenue. A recent Official Information Act request dug up a 2018-era estimate that a capital gains tax would take eight years to build up annual revenue equal to half a percent of GDP.
The way I see it, New Zealand has three major economic issues: the cost of housing, insufficient infrastructure, and an imbalance between Government spending and revenue.
Both asset sales and a capital gains tax could help, but neither is a gamechanger. We shouldn’t sweat the small stuff just because they are ideological boogeymen.
To quote Justin Tipa again: “We won’t get anywhere if we keep debating which abstract, party-political philosophy to apply to a blank canvas instead of making reasonable refinements to a nation that actually exists”.
92 Comments
Living in a democracy or a racist ethnostate is not "complex", "unnecessary ideological battles" & an "abstract, party-political philosophy", its a fundamental quality of life.
"You can’t have a liberal democracy if two babies born on the same day already are determined to have preexisting grievances against each other.” Thomas Sowell
Interesting person to quote. He also said “In the twentieth century, we need people who are trained to analyze so they can understand long-term consequences." By any measure 2025 is the long-term consequence of policies made and carried out in the 1800s and early 1900s. Almost everyone who analyses the long-term consequences of those would conclude that "two babies born on the same day" now, could face vastly different present prospects. We would have to be callous if we chose not to do something to remedy that.
Of course it is near impossible to entirely "analyse" today, what a policy written today, will do in the long term. 20\20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. If everyone has had equal opportunity under any particular policy, then it is for them to make the best of it. People make different choices and have different outcomes because of those choices. Tough luck. Make better choices.
The reason anyone entertains making amends for grievances of the past, whether they're Treaty or abuse in care, is it raises the social cost of repeating them. It's not so much about the aggrieved or what compensation they get, it's more putting a price tag on slipping up again in future.
After all the abuses of the past were repeated decade after decade simply because there were never any consequences.
We would have to be callous if we chose not to do something to remedy that. Do something? If you are going to do something don't do race based action and divide households and families by race. Just stick with the basics of equal rights and equality of suffrage - our ancestors fought to keep these things and we risk throwing it away to be seen to "do something".
"In this important book, an eminent authority presents a new perspective on affirmative action, investigating its actual consequences in the United States and in other countries where it has been in effect. Evaluating his empirical data, Thomas Sowell concludes that race preference programs worldwide have not met expectations and have often produced the opposite of what was originally intended."
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300107753/affirmative-action-around…
https://www.hoover.org/research/affirmative-action-around-world
""analyses the long-term consequences of those would conclude that 'two babies born on the same day' now, could face vastly different present prospects"". At one level that is true; everyone is affected by what happened to their ancestors 20, 200, 2000 and 2million years ago. For my family it was the invention of the railways where all my family worked for over 100 years. For Kiwis it was signing a piece of paper that made a major difference. But lets think about those kids born today. My grandchildren are a mixture, some PI and some European, and their prospects depend on the education and wealth of their parents and on having two loving parents sharing a home with them. In comparison to those factors their skin colour is almost irrelevant. For example it didn't stop success for becoming PM in the UK whereas a non-Oxbridge education does seem to be critical.
Yes, perhaps Tipa should give Thomas Sowell a call.
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”
"If there is not equality of outcomes among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected—or assumed—when conditions are not nearly so comparable?"
Depends how you want to define it. Many would point out the US shift into autocracy mode, bypassing rule of law and political convention appears to be highly productive. We already knew that; democracies are inefficient and often expend a lot of their effort with infighting. Emperors are comparatively efficient at getting what they want, the main problem is they're not always right.
Ultimately we should go with whatever works empirically for us. Many would point out that voting out a government that hurts us in any way may be counterproductive when we need tough medicine to get the economy rebalanced in a productive direction. Those that advocate for longer terms are essentially saying we should suspend democracy for longer periods to allow such work to be done. Maybe they're right? 10 year terms might make people think harder about who they vote for, while allowing policies to be seen through to completion. They might likewise make being in opposition boring to the point nobody wants to do it.
The way I see it, New Zealand has three major economic issues: the cost of housing, insufficient infrastructure, and an imbalance between Government spending and revenue.
If you miss out including inequality as a major if not defining economic issue then no wonder you think people are just arguing about meaningless "abstract ideology"
The terms of the Treaty were not honoured by the Crown. Greedy settlers/ The Crown used their armed forces to take land from its owners at gunpoint. The Crown has apologised and a small portion of the land and small amounts of money have been given in compensation. So many New Zealanders think the compensation is enough. Some think too much has been given. How would they feel if a foreign nation arrived today and took over their assets while killing members of their family. Would they just go along with that. I don’t think so.
What if aliens landed on the planet, and took over everything. But they brought with them such advanced technology that it doubled the life expectancy of humans, and cured cancer and other common life threatening diseases. What if they provided superior housing, transportation, and other civil amenities that dramatically improved humans' quality of life and living standards? Would you agree to live harmoniously with the aliens enjoying your new life, or would you fight to remove them and demand to go back to how things were in 2025?
Wowee, steady on...its not like Captain Cook arrived in a super yacht, took selfies on his iPhone of him & the lads installing flushing toilets and handing out modern day medicine like candy, and its probably fair to say they brought a few "life threatening diseases" with them 😂
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the drawn out settlement process nor the ongoing shifting of the goal posts...how does if get fixed, I am not sure, but surely comments like that don't help.
There's not a great desire to live as one. Many who are opposed to the Treaty are also opposed to hearing te Reo (or Chinese) on the TV. You can't be one without everyone giving and taking a bit.
Living as one would mean more languages spoken and heard, more diverse public holidays and festivals on the official calendar, dismantling Christian centricity, and better representation of different cultures in leadership.
Arguably if kiwis were into that, the Treaty would've been made largely irrelevant. The reason it stands is because of an ongoing desire to assimilate Maori when recent history has been a revival of their distinct culture.
The parents gave him that "Bad Luck" they just poison the next generation and so the cycle repeats. Its pretty much over for the Palestinians now anyway, they have been setback over 100 years, its pretty much unrecoverable for them. They made a massive mistake on October 7th and they are paying the price.
Māori were not a unified nation at the time. When Auckland was first settled it was on 3,500 acres of land bought from a local tribe that wished to ally with the British to keep them safe from other Māori tribes. The Auckland isthmus had seen much bloodshed long before colonization, with the region becoming sparsely populated due to fierce warfare.
The Māori tribes of the Waikato were a threat to Auckland and refused to acknowledge the authority of the Crown and lay down their weapons and live peaceably. British imperial troops, militias and some kūpapa (Māori allies of the British) invaded the Waikato to eliminate this threat. Land was confiscated as part of the terms of the conflict.
Māori tribes were not unfamiliar with the usual outcome of defeat in battle, loss of territory. Around 250 kūpapa perished in the Māori Land Wars.
Whilst my NZ History professor had a very low opinion of the author, Mike King's Penguin History of New Zealand is an interesting read.
I have sat in a lecture hall and had a member of the oppressed describe 100-year grievances for events we knew to have only happened 40 years earlier. That doesn't mean injustices weren't suffered, even if their memory conflated.
That same guest also said most Maori had settled for maybe 1% of what they should have been. Measles, guns, land grabs - the colonizers definitely caused significant loss to the Maori.
Indeed, the Musket Wars had ten to twenty times the casualties of the New Zealand Land Wars and featured mass enslavement and genocide. Similar things happened in the Americas where tribes needed to be protected from the extreme violence of other tribes. The Comanche versus the Apache is a notable example. Of course the European tribes weren't immune from this also as the Spanish, French, British and Portuguese and others duked it out. The conquest of Mexico and and the Andes was assisted greatly by tribes who had a score to settle with the Aztecs and Inca.
One of the reasons for the American Revolution was to stop the British Crown from interfering with the expansion west into indigenous territory. The Crown considered them to be British subjects that fell under their protection. Some American Indian tribes allied with British forces during the War of 1812.
It could be said that the Māori were a little more fortunate to be one of the last to suffer colonisation as the British were developing a higher level of law and order. Māori leaders were aware of this. At the time a treaty with the British Crown was the most sensible course of action. It would be interesting to explore an alternative history where the Waikato, King Country and Taranaki tribes swore allegiance to the Crown and laid down their arms and then brought attention to the Crown any subsequent violations. New Zealand could look quite different today.
"into indigenous territory". And therein lies an issue. Who was indigenous? Which tribe? The one the ended up there after attacking the other tribes, defeating, killing and enslaving them? Just because the UN (an utterly reprehensible organisation) seems to have redefined the meaning of the word "indigenous", it doesn't mean everyone else has to.
A good article referencing a good speech.
Ideologues would find it hard to understand though. They prefer the simple as the article points out.
Better to focus on improving outcomes. Solving underlying problems. That is hard and takes time and education (or at least hearts and minds)
Unfortunately, governments aren't good at managing, and the private sector is motivated by profit.
And there's an inverse correlation between those that yell loudest and the capability to solve underpinning problems. Those who yell loudest typically don't like sharing the pie.
ACT's bill is a distraction. Much like Brexit. I Hope NZ doesn't go backwards because of simple-mindedness.
'ACT's bill is a distraction'
Is true. Because there is no intent to actiually pass the bill its wasting everyones time - when the economy is in free fall, Luxon is relaxing immigration rules again (?) desparate to find a way to improve a filing economy and China is rapidly taking the lead position in the world order.
Because we spent the last 20 years selling houses to each other, pretending we had an rock star economy and have defocused on everything that really mattered (innovation, eduction, infrastructure strategy, attracting talent) we are now a tiny weak nation in the middle of nowhere - right at a time when the world is undergoing the biggest changes in the last 200 years (china overtakes the west, climate change is at a critical juncture, AI is getting dangerously advanced and is an arms race, genocide has cbecome acceptable and is supported by most nations)
NZ needs to get its act together and fast. Kiwis of all races and cultures need to get together and realise the enemy isnt each other and who owns what...,. its how we as a nation turn around and survive the next period of history,
This impact, like many historic changes, will be having a much greater effect on Māori as only 57.7% of Māori participants passed reading (compared to 78.8% of European students); 55.1% of Maori passed writing (74% European) and 38.1% of Maori passed numeracy (63% European). A student cannot be awarded level 1 without all three.
In 1840 there were 80,000 Maori and 2000 non-Māori in our nation. By 1896 the Māori population was 42,000 and the European 700,000. The Maori population stayed below 100,000 until 1945 (then 6% of our head count). Underachievement in education of a small portion of the country has a marginal economic impact.
Māori remained less than 10% of our nation until 1983, at which point trends changed significantly. In 2024 the Māori population topped 900,000 and by 2043 will be approximately 21%, with a further 12% being Pasifika – another ethnicity struggling in our education system.
Without properly educating our Māori children from this point productivity will remain low, we will have to keep importing qualified people, and the tax and welfare implications are catastrophic. To grow well, all ethnicities need the highest quality education.
What are the stats for Asian kids? I'm guessing they are way better than the European outcomes. At the moment the number of European babies being born in NZ is plummeting, as young people and families pack up and flee to Australia. While in 2024 the number of Asian births overtook Maori births. In a few decades there will be few European families left here, and Asian families will dominate. The discrepancy between Maori and Asian outcomes will be even greater than the current discrepancy between Maori and Europeans.
Maori are so focused on dragging the country back to 1840 that they havent noticed they are being "colonised" for the second time. Except this time they all voted for it.
Absolutely. And as the descendents of immigrants who arrived with nothing, but who worked hard and made a success of their lives, and pushed their children to succeed, they are going to be even less tolerant of a group of people who don't want to do anything for themselves but think they are entitled to take what they want from other people. And they won't have any "white guilt" or "white privilege" to beat themselves up with. There won't be any more "allies" in the identity politics playground.
I've got some good news for you KW from a snapshot of a report soon to be released by BERL about the Māori economy. "There has been a positive shift in the skill levels of Māori workers, with 45% now in high-skilled jobs, 13% in skilled jobs, and 43% in low-skilled jobs. In 2018, 35% of Māori were in high-skilled jobs and 53% in low skilled jobs.
Government grants and social benefits constitute a larger portion of Māori household income, accounting for 33% of the total, while this figure is only 9% for non-Māori households. Notably, this is the first time since 2006 that the reliance on government assistance for Māori households has not increased.
Māori entrepreneurship saw dramatic growth again between 2018 and 2023. The number of self-employed Māori surged by 50%, while the number of Māori employers increased by 31%."
You missed the key point:
they are going to be even less tolerant
And KW is correct on it, all the 'wins' they might get today will be for nothing. The best thing the Maori Party could have done is take a firm stand on immigration. They started down that road, but folded. Such weakness when it counted.
If it wasn't for TOP's land tax, I could have voted for them on that policy alone as it showed they knew how to make the life of everyone already here better. But sadly no.
IT GUY, you should include a link with your quote:
As education fails Māori, so it fails the country
I'm wondering, with the rise of AI, if education is the answer. Perhaps education in the humanities. Make them learn Greek and Latin?
It's probably an impossible task currently. Anyone who has had any real life exposure to this problem will be aware of the realities of the task. Maybe everyone should be immigrants. Uproot everyone and plonk them into different countries. The environment needs to be changed.
The restructuring of the education system would need to be profound. It's really dumb to just suggest "more education" as if that would solve anything. It's attitudes that need to change as well. Students need to want to learn. Students need supportive students around them as well as supportive teachers and community. That's why many parents pay for private education or buy houses in good school zones.
Things will only change over long stretches of time. Maybe centuries. Certain groups, as long as they stay distinctly different groups, will continue on their trajectory. There will always be a need for assistance, practically forever. For anything to change rapidly there would need to be revolution and I don't think that will be acceptable. Revolutions were tried in the 20th century and it didn't work out all that well.
Looking forward, I would forsee the number of disadvantaged only getting bigger.
Unemployment won't come down by the growth alone model, because such growth has to be efficient to be economic, ( barring hidden subsidies, likely to be ignoring environmental Costs with this lot), and likely to get worst as AI and robotics take over.
So investors will thrive, but those with little have no way of earning more.
So maybe those complaining about disadvantaged getting extra assistance might want to rethink, many of us might be joining them.
What is it that Maoris really want?
In my humble opinion they basically want respect.
But I've got Maori relatives on two sides of my family who have completely assimilated into maim-stream society.
In my younger days I had two Maori friends. Over the decades I have lost touch with them but only for the same reason that I have lost touch with most of my pakeha relatives and friends: NZ families are generally spread out not only around NZ but also around the world (mostly to Australia). Apart from my brother and sister I would have to travel from Auckland to a farm in the Waikato to meet up with my next nearest relation.
But, on the other hand, there are a small group of Maori activists who have a chip on their shoulder and would seek unearned wealth and power. It is this group that, ironically, allowed the current political 'freak show' to run the country. If the current Maori activists were of the same quality as Apirana Ngata then things would be a lot better.
Why would 500 Cheifs give sovereignty, govenance of their land & possesions to a 18 year old wahine tauiwi on the other side of the world that they have never met?
Was there a race to colonialise NZ between the French & the British at the height of their globalisation land theft campaigns across the world?
Is Waitangi just a Nga Puhi thing?
They signed up for Crown sovereignty for sure. It was in their interest big time.
It worked too. No more inter tribe genocide for a start.
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/dr-lawrie-knight-fact-checking…
"because major parties lacked a clear vision"
National might have a vision but its a pretty obscure one. Actually running away from the issue. Interestingly enough Winston first is not far behind, more like retreating into the shadows as opposed to running away to let ACT take the flak. Labour have a vision of co-governance and partnership. I won't bother about the Greens who are aligned with Te Pati Maori.
"Perhaps the strongest argument against the tax is that it won’t raise much revenue." Probably correct but coming from the wrong angle rather than implementing it as a measure to equalise the investment playing field.
There is already CGT on many shares, unrealised at that. It already raises revenue. In excess of a billion? Someone else can extract the figure.
What most commentators mean. We want CGT on house sales, property in the house and land sense, in varying degrees from every single house or land sale to exempting the house you live in. In its wider form inheritance tax and business sales as well.
There is already CGT on many shares, unrealised at that.
If you're talking about the FIF regime then that is more like an annual land tax than a CGT. Which is exactly why we should use an annual land tax and not a CGT. CGT has a higher admin overhead and also distorts the economy, eg punishes people for selling and moving location for a new job (as most CGT are only applied on sale).
Govt revenue and expenditure imbalance is such a non-issue. In fact, we will be relying on that imbalance widening if we are going to sort out infrastructure and housing. I think if you have a look at the whole NZ balance sheet, our real challenges become clearer. We are loaded up to the eyeballs with private sector debt / liabilities, and this creates a huge flow of money from businesses and mortgagors to the wealthy few per cent (onshore and offshore). If anyone thinks our next phase of growth will come from expanding private sector debt they are deeply mistaken. We're maxed out.
Its shaping up to be an amazing next election.
- NAct offering asset sales and foreign investment, smaller Govt.
- Labour a Wealth or CGT to fund bigger Govt.
Its perhaps a once in a generation platform.
Its not going to be about the Treaty, National will not, and cannot let that happen, the Act bill dies here.
Then TPM and Labour will try and steer the debate to what they think we should have done.
Because that's not how the Left roll. It will be used to fund more bureacrats, more welfare, more handouts, any means possible to insert Govt into people's lives and make them dependent on it. More taxes, more spending, more promises, more taxes, more spending ... its a never ending cycle.
I think (hope) labour knows it doesn't need a bigger central Govt. Incidentally the public service has been 20% of jobs for 35 years (down from 30% in the 80s).
But a bigger spending Govt is obviously needed. The Govt balance sheet needs to expand to fund the infrastructure and wider upgrades the country needs. The alternative is a private sector balance sheet expansion, which would be ridiculous and destabilising given our world-leading private debt levels.
Regular reminder also that a bigger spending / capital gains taxing Govt doesn't make the private sector worse off in cash terms. The Govt giveth when it spends and taketh back when it taxes.
What changes when Govt increases spending/taxation s the distribution of income / wealth, and the proportion of our real resources (labour, machinery, tech, energy etc) that are utilised for the public good.
The invention of email, cellphones, texts, personal computers/laptops, zoom, data warehousing etc. has clearly not helped improve the productivity of the public sector in the past 35 years. Any gains in labour productivity must have been replaced by increased communications headcount!
“We won’t get anywhere if we keep debating which abstract, party-political philosophy to apply to a blank canvas instead of making reasonable refinements to a nation that actually exists” -Tipa and Luxinda know exactly where we are headed - refinement by refinement.
To quote Justin Tipa again: “We won’t get anywhere if we keep debating which abstract, party-political philosophy to apply to a blank canvas instead of making reasonable refinements to a nation that actually exists”.
That's the point. Those who are in control and do not want us to get anywhere else.
Distraction suits them just fine. Let them fight amongst themselves and they won't see us.
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.