Chris Trotter*
I never bought Gordon McLauchlan’s “Passionless People” argument. The book was published in 1976 – barely a year since Rob Muldoon ran over Bill Rowling’s Labour Government in his big blue bus. Liberal-Left intellectuals like McLauchlan were appalled. It had never occurred to them that Labour – sitting on a 23-seat majority – could possibly lose the 1975 election.
But, lose it did, and McLauchlan’s response was to do what all democratic politicians tell us we must never do – blame the people. New Zealanders, he said, were without passion – “smiling zombies”. As if a country filled with such people could ever have produced a song like “Nature Enter Me”!
The decisive argument against McLauchlan’s thesis came five years after the book’s publication, in 1981. No one could honestly accuse a nation that had just spent 56 days convulsing itself over Apartheid and Rugby of lacking passion. McLauchlan quickly found other things to write about.
Imagine my consternation, then, upon discovering that Karl du Fresne, hardly an ideological soulmate of McLauchlan’s, had nevertheless appropriated his “smiling zombies” description of New Zealanders and used it to diss them in the pages of the Australian Spectator.
It’s about here, I suspect, that we arrive at the nub of the issue. Du Fresne is by no means alone among Pakeha males of a certain age in sensing that the power they have carried in their hands for so long is beginning to slip through their fingers. While they have dozed in their comfortable armchairs, new social, economic and political forces have not only made it past the “Establishment’s” front gate, they’re through the front door! To say that du Fresne and his ilk are not happy, is to seriously understate matters. Just listen to this!
“So far, the smiling zombies – five million of them – have tacitly encouraged all this radical transformation through their silence.”
Whoa! Let’s just take a few seconds to parse that sentence. When du Fresne talks about five million New Zealanders, he’s talking about all of them – Jacinda’s whole “team”. This is, of course, hogwash. It is a matter of public record that in the 2020 General Election Labour attracted an astonishing 50.01% of the Party Vote, and the Greens 7.86%. A resounding vote of confidence in the parties of the Left. The Right, however, still managed to attract 33.4% of the Party Vote. Of the 2,919,086 votes cast, 957,306 went to National and Act. So, not quite five million, then. In fact, not even close!
Rather strangely, du Fresne also omits from his commentary any reference to the impressive demonstration mounted by New Zealanders living in rural and provincial New Zealand. The convoys of tractors and utes prompted much spontaneous applause from the “townies” who encountered them. Not everybody in New Zealand is silent.
Also missing from du Fresne’s analysis is any reference to the findings of the Aussie-based Roy Morgan polling agency. The last two of its polls have registered a fairly substantial decline in the Labour Party’s popularity – from 50% to less than 40%. In the latest Roy Morgan, the two major blocs, Labour-Green and National-Act are separated by just 7.5 percentage points. And there are still two years to go until the next election.
So, what is it, really, that’s eating Justin du Fresne? He’s been practicing the craft of journalism long enough to know that this government’s grasp on power is very far from being unassailable. Indeed, should the Delta variant of Covid-19 make it past New Zealand’s border and start spreading at speed among this country’s still largely unvaccinated population, then, for Labour, the political weather could turn very nasty, very quickly.
I suspect that the following sentence from du Fresne’s Spectator piece holds the key to his all-too-evident alienation:
“In mainstream media, Maori place names, most previously unheard of by most New Zealanders and unused even by people of Maori descent, have displaced official names bestowed by British colonists — ignoring the inconvenient fact that New Zealand cities and towns are British, not Maori, creations.”
Du Fresne is very far from being alone in finding this development extremely hard to swallow. Quite literally, it is hitting people where they live. As any Māori New Zealander will attest, it is no small thing to have the names you grew up with – and all that they signify in the history of your life – unceremoniously shoved aside by those speaking an unfamiliar tongue. Simply re-iterating that Māori is an official language of New Zealand is too cute by half for a lot of Kiwis. The arbitrary re-naming of their home towns is felt by many as an almost physical blow, and those responsible are considered guilty of attacking something fundamentally important to their sense of national – and personal – identity.
Du Fresne articulates their acute sense of alienation with considerable eloquence:
“New Zealanders returning after a few years abroad might wonder whether they’ve blundered into a parallel universe. A government that is pitifully thin on ministerial ability and experience is busy re-inventing the wheel, and doing it at such speed that the public has barely had time to catch its breath. To quote one seasoned political observer: ‘It seems like a hostile takeover of our country is underway and most people feel powerless to do anything about it’.”
Except, as Gordon McLauchlan discovered all those years ago, there is something people who feel themselves to be the target of a hostile political takeover can do about it. They can vote the politicians responsible out of office.
As a young man preparing to cast his first vote in 1975, I did not share McLachlan’s (and so many others’) carefree confidence that the Third Labour Government was unbeatable. I used to hitch-hike my way across the country in those days, and dutifully listening to my vehicular benefactors, I had heard the anger and alienation building slowly in their voices. When Rob’s big bus rolled over Bill Rowling I was not surprised. Too many Kiwis had lost faith in “Big Norm’s” dream.
What du Fresne, and all those who still cling to the Right’s discredited neoliberal dream, need to grasp is that a very similar loss of faith has taken place in the hearts and minds of Māori, Pasifika, women and young New Zealanders. Jacinda Ardern’s “politics of kindness”, and her handling of the Christchurch massacres and Covid-19, continue to hold them – for the moment. They’re not irretrievably alienated – yet.
What the parties on both sides of the aisle need to understand, however, is that these people are not passionless, and they are certainly not zombies. They are voters – and they want change. Now.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
89 Comments
The first half of this article raises an interesting but unstated point around the "smiling zombies" descriptor, and one many in this forum will resonate with. NZ is a democracy, and as such every three years we get to vote for our Government. But there is an important proviso here, the quality of choice! Someone will win the election! It doesn't matter that the overall quality of choices to be made by the voting public is essentially poor to totally sucks, one or some of the parties who put themselves forward for election will win. There is literally no way the public of NZ can say to the politicians, we universally reject all of you! And worse, once a party or parties have won that election, there is no way at all to remove them from office. We are stuck with them for three years. They could literally turn the nation on it's head with impunity!
And so our democratic system has been hijacked, and our politicians co-opt the MSM into being their sycophantic megaphones, broadcasting their tripe, with little to no critical analysis. And of course, the real "smiling zombies" of the general public fall into categories of tribalism, blindly and mindlessly following their stars into societal collapse.
murray86 my man, I have been on that same train for a fair few years now. We need a 'vote of no confidence' option or else we are relegated to the 'lesser of evils' vote or dont vote and the media tell us we dont deserve a vote. F that. I'm all for continued change and our system is broken. 3 years is not long enough to see the effects of any policy changes. Lastly there is a saying 'for democracy to work, the populace needs to be educated' and we still do not teach critical thought nor ethics in our schools! How do we plan to get through the 'fake news' era without critical thought?!
It's a shame, this government has done some quite good things, but they just can't seem to say no to the extreme left of their party, and ultimately it will definitely kill them.
Despite some of the good things they've done, they will be done in by their own wokeness, because most of the time simply wokeness that we don't need.
100% I also think the woke stuff should be earned, like give them a bone if they deliver something in their portfolios.
As to Trotter’s points about Jacinda still having the young, completely out of touch. Surely he must get how pissed young people are at how house prices shot up in the last twelve months. They better knock the tax policy out of the park this October and build something other than a business case if they want to hold power next term.
Also I think Māori should be pissed too, feels like this government has delivered more for Pacifica than them.
Big Norm’s dream in long hindsight wasn’t all that dreamy though. For a start a superannuation scheme that would have solved today’s escalating problem in that regard. ACC still running. Satellite townships such as Rolleston Canterbury, now on the map, even a property speculation tax too. And he had the guts and morals to cancel a Springbok tour, of which a later example tore the country apart. An oil crisis, in party fighting and insecurity weakened Labour, and when they lost Big Norm none of them could withstand Muldoon’s ferocity, personal attacks and on, and on.
Who is asleep? Not me.
In 1981 I marched against a racial based political system in South Africa ( I was not keen, but felt the obligation) Only march I ever did.
Forty years later I fear I will soon be marching against a racially based political system in New Zealand. Don't want to, will have to, because it's a crime.
And now we have to apologies for the crime of trying to deport people who were here illegally, and for getting them in the morning, which was probably done because it was often the only time they were likely to be home.
I thought NZ was a sovereign country? and now to make up for upholding our sovereign rights we are being told that we should be allowing them to be citizens, I thought New Zealanders get to decide who can be citizens of NZ, not people from other countries.
Doesn't NZ have enough people struggling in society to look after without taking on hundreds of thousands more?
Straight over the top of your head. It is not so much the racial make up of people, it is about the system that this country is operated under, where Maori tikanga is only just beginning to finally have some sort of say in the way we do things.
This is what people are failing constantly to understand. You can dislike it, that's fine, but I hope one day we do have inclusion of the culture of this land in all of our law making and legislation, otherwise all we have is oh, oh, apartheid.
.
being a middle class pakeha himself maybe chris is sensing the undercurrent of discontent with the way things are going and the next election will see labour put back in the bin.maybe sick of half-baked ideas,virtue signalling and actually want affordable housing and herd immunity,so if some of the team are now looking for a transfer it is no surprise.
The conclusion: ""... these people are not passionless, and they are certainly not zombies. They are voters – and they want change. Now.""
Maybe the change we want is a return to a perceived normality not a radical change. A return to a simpler life, fewer rules and regulations, more personal freedom, less congestion, less pollution, kids just being kids rather than being continually monitored. I thought it would never happen but I must be getting conservative in my old age.
In the past I could make this argument on its debateable merits but now the first questions will be about my ethnicity and age. That's what really aggravates me about today's politics.
You haven't read stuff.co.nz in the last year? the Spinoff is now being funded by NZ on air, which is going into very dangerous territory for a government,
https://twitter.com/TaxpayersUnion/status/1418407966240169988
National were terrible with their Cameron Slater mess, but now it looks like Labour want to follow suit, and make hypocrites of themselves.
This is pretty ridiculous using NZ on air to fund left wing media websites, https://twitter.com/TaxpayersUnion/status/1418407966240169988
No the word your looking for is not passionless, its passive. New Zealanders just lie on the couch and just accept it. People in other countries, in particular Australia don't put up with shit. We are getting more and more PC by the year and apparently everything can now be solved with just a hug and a frown and a 50 year old apology.
Are we really passive or have we become overwhelmed by the "just one vote" mentality? The understanding that there is a huge power imbalance, and that the authorities, all of them, tend to entrench their own power and influence when challenged by the proletariat. Indeed it is possible to find the evidence that to challenge the powers that be, that a worse outcome may eventuate. Most people realise that to have some effect, one needs not only a platform, but must also be eloquent and reasonably charismatic. Traits that most of us feel we fall well short on. Plus there is the fact that to get on a platform, one opens themselves up to criticism, and those slings and arrows can hurt!
The new legislation replacing the RMA is actually scary! Our firms lawyer has been going through the new rules and it is the most concerning piece of legislation she has ever seen.
The kicker...there is probably less than a few thousand people in NZ that have actually read it, or know what it will entail, yet it will affect EVERYTHING.
This government is seriously lacking in talent and the ability to undertake an impartial, balanced analysis of anything, have you ever seen a cost benefit analysis of any of the new rules that have come in over the last few years?? Such a wishy washy load of BS in what is supposed to be an analysis document, I actually had a laugh at how ridiculous it was.
Well, I've read it.
And I'll tell you it isn't strong enough to create a stable ecology. Far from it.
So it will get washed away in the wave-break. Human-kind are now so ecology-dominant that they have to reconcile an overpopulation, in less than a lifetime. And we need to leave everything else intact enough to support whoever is left. By the time that is written up (real sustainability) you would REALLY scream.
Probably, but then again the likely recipient of fall off in any traditional Labour support will fall to the Greens. That is indicating already a Labour & Greens formal coalition if that side of things is to form a government. Even now, outside of cabinet, the Greens are holding quite some sway. What we are witnessing now, will pale into significance, if the 2023 produces such a government.
FG. You would have said the same thing about nat voters, yet last time they swung left to the extent of 400K when presented with a shambolic blue option. Especially women. The latest poll has the greens only marginally up, ACT appears to have pulled a chunk from Lab. Both Du Fresne and Trotter present their arguments and predictions within a conventional NZ ethnic profile context but I wonder how much thought they've given to there now being over 1m NZrs who were not born here. How they think and are likely to vote is understood in only broad categories. What, I wonder, are they making of the current significant reshaping of the society to which they migrated?
Well yes but that’s why I stated traditional Labour voters. It has been discussed, but only quantified inexactly, that many National voters went to Labour to block the Greens out of actual government. Most unlikely to happen again methinks. National has every opportunity to redeem itself but it will need a selection criteria and presentation of candidates greatly improved from the previous dubious personalities on offer. A new leader too probably, but who they might be of requisite ability, doesn’t even look to be on the horizon.
National hasn't woken up to the fact that a good portion of Kiwis don't like the neoliberal experiment.
But where Labour is becoming more vulnerable is by their off the cliff wokeness since this term, which is getting more ridiculous by the day.
We have to apologize now for just upholding our sovereign right to enforce who is legally allowed to stay in the country or not, how pathetic.
I think Act has probably taken some Nat votes and National have taken some from labour. I don’t see how a current labour voters can switch to Act in those numbers. Labours key issue is people are clicking on on to the announcing ‘wonderful’ policies and then delivering nothing. Think KiwiBuild and the boost to mental Heath which have both been a flop but not bad ideas. The fact that there was no substance behind any of them is very disappointing. The mental health one is particularly disappointing as it was one that was actually needed. I suspect Mike King’s comments would have done some damage. If what he says is remotely true then there are some serious questions that need to be addressed.
Agree with your first point - Labour are so mind-numbingly unambitious that they will comfortably hold the centre ground and push National into an ugly (racist) scrap with ACT for the right-wing vote. Labour are however wide open on their left and the Greens will take advantage. The Labour / Green coalition will be far more radical than Labour alone, because Labour will blame any radical change on the Greens. However, I completely support radical shifts - at the moment our country is serving the needs of the few at the expense of the majority of people that live here (and our environment). It is time for change.
Chris has again acknowledged that the tide is turning. In my 63 years as a white male and the grandfather of mixed race offspring i am appalled at how the country has become divided. I have no issue with Maori place names , i think the anthem sounds better in Maori but these issues are not the issues that concern me, The dumbing down of education, the lack of knowledge of the government ministers about business and employment, the system of MMP where people are selected rather than elected to office. The huge influence of minority views on policy leading to unexpected outcomes. etc etc. I have never been interested in Politics as i have always believed they were an unnecessary evil on all sides but now we are certainly waking up.
"As any Māori New Zealander will attest, it is no small thing to have the names you grew up with – and all that they signify in the history of your life – unceremoniously shoved aside by those speaking an unfamiliar tongue."
Wait, what? Maybe I'm caffeine-deficient, but not a single Maori alive grew up in a world any different to everyone else. None (or at least, very, very few) of them knew Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, or any of the other cities or towns by any other official name. At what point in the past couple of centuries did a child wake up one morning in Tamaki Makaurau to be told he/she now lives in Auckland? Auckland. That's A-U-C-K...C...yes, it's a new letter...
I think a big issue is that sweeping changes such as this can make people feel displaced in their own country. It's all very back-to-school and not everyone wants to add that to their list of things to do when life already feels overfull. Like any monumental change it cannot be forced in a short period of time, it may take a generation or more, and adopting an adversarial tone against those who are unwilling or unable to adapt is unhelpful in the extreme.
I am encouraging my own children to learn both Chinese and Maori languages, as the world they are growing up in is different to that of my own childhood. They are young and can consume new concepts and knowledge at a much faster pace than those of us whose mental concrete has had a longer time to set.
I'm not saying we should excuse the old farts for resisting change, just that the current approach needs to leave room for them to come to terms with it. It shouldn't be an "us vs them" issue.
Change? To what? And measured by what?
Sorry Chris, but the politics of ethnicity, gender and rainbow alliance has changed zero in terms of their power, wealth and influence over change in elite decision making, since it arose in the late 1960s. It has grown more media influential esp since 2010, as inequality of outcomes and opportunity has also increased. Yes, change is wanted and needed: in life chances and in redistributive outcomes. No sign of that from this government which has gone soggy centre as they all do from Left origin
There are several points I could take issue with in this piece, but I’ll restrict myself to three. (1) The rural protest that Chris Trotter chides me for not mentioning in my article took place on July 16. My article was published in the Spectator Australia of June 26. I am not blessed with the gift of prophecy. (2) Similarly, the two Roy Morgan polls he accuses me of ignoring were published weeks after my piece appeared. (3) My first name is Karl, not Justin. Justin was my brother.
Keep writing mate, kiwis are silent as we lose our jobs if we speak up (see professors in Auckland that penned a letter to the listener with their opinion on the definition of science).
It's a growing theme shared amongst closest friends only as we all fake how comfortable we are turning up to work and starting every meeting with a trubalistic chant (karakia)
It read as more a mean-spirited vent than any sort of credible discussion of the issues you raised. What Covid model would you have preferred, the UK, US, Germany? Look at Australia, NSW in lockdown, daily press conferences, people intubated in ICU's, deaths, people losing businesses. Is that it? Given your article was published in Australia, it would have been germane to have referenced the Crown's obligations to Maori under Te Tiriti, kind of relevant don't you think? The over-whelming legacy of Labour's second term has been house price increases, who do you think benefits most out of that - Maori or pakeha?
As for Maori wards, I'm bewildered that is so contentious, Local Government plays a far bigger role in our everyday lives. The Tauranga Rate Payers type. New Zealand/Aotearoa is an amazing country with a rich legacy of Maori and Pakeha living side by side. However if you cannot accept it is a Polynesian country where the Crown has statutory obligations to Maori, then you are going to feel increasingly marginalised.
Thrre is zero obligation for a race based partnership in the ToW (can't be any between the Crown an subjects). This idea was originally a side comment from a High Court judge on a single case the 1980s, unfortunately misinterpreted by misguided academics and politicians promotjng their own agendas ever since.
I hope the following doesn't come to fruition. I've no reason to doubt the source. Judge for yourselves. MSM of course strangely silent. Changing place names pales into insignificance compared with this.
"Minister Mahuta’s plan will result in freshwater, stormwater and wastewater assets and infrastructure owned and controlled by the country’s 67 local authorities - and paid for by generations of ratepayers –
being transferred to four new regional water agencies 50:50 co-governed by iwi.
Although local authorities will provide all of the assets, they will be given only 50 percent of the control. The other 50 percent will be given to local iwi.
Not only will councils effectively have control of their assets cut in half, Cabinet papers reveal an extraordinary requirement: all decisions undertaken by these new agencies “will require a super majority decision of 75 per cent”. That means no decisions can be made without the approval of iwi.
In effect, iwi will have a veto right and be in control of all New Zealand water services decision-making."
Will Goff tow the party line and sell out Auckland's rate payers? He has said.
“Aucklanders have invested heavily in building up Watercare’s more than $10 billion worth of assets, with a further $11 billion invested in water infrastructure in our current 10-year Budget,” “Control over those assets, and our ability to ensure that Aucklanders’ needs are put first, is undermined by the reform, which proposes that Auckland Council could have less than 40 percent of the representation in the governance of the new entity."
Goff needs to hold a binding referendum on this issue. Under the Govt proposed structure we the Auckland ratepayers will have our water controlled by Tainui who are not responsible to us. They can charge what they like & every time we flush the loo it will be ching-ching for them. Check out the video of Westlands mayor on this issue.
This is another change by Labour that is totally undemocratic & an underhand way of giving control of water to Maori.
Unfortunately it's not just aged Pakeha males. It's pretty much anyone who identifies as non Maori that is potentially adversely affected. Whether that results in Labour being rinsed in a landslide or not remains to be seen with Maori representing just 15 to 20 % of the population and Labour abandoning its historical working class voter base.
The further race based policy becomes imbedded the bigger the pushback maybe although with nationally sanctioned brainwashing in the education system fully installed you can see why the left is eager to lower the voting age.
With the grand stage flourish typical of Trotter he would have us believe the radical transformation of NZ that DuFresene describes is driven by a popular movement. New social, economic and political masses forces are supposedly 'sweeping through the gates and the front door'. Wonderful imagery but sadly not supported by the reality of a small tribal elite perhaps numbering only in the few thousands attempting a blatant power grab, actively aided by a small and largely partisan academia, a confined number of activist senior bureaucrats and a breathtakingly unbalanced media to tell the zombies what to think.
I'm technically a "Maori New Zealander" and the last thing I want is special treatment, de-colonisation, re-naming or being subjected to woke corporate brownwashing. It's all a load of **** the people pushing this agenda are toxic.
But nobody asks my opinion about it. I need to up my ancestral victimhood game.
You certainly do, that is turning down advantage and that is not something I would recommend to anyone. In education there are many Maori specific scholarships that will make a significant difference to the cost of an education. You could start an import business and get 20% of your local government agencies supply contracts. These are not advantages to be wasted and that is before you connect with your local Iwi to understand their direct credit capabilities.
I have some very capable Maori friends and I give them the same counsel, far better they take up those opportunities than have them wasted.
I am technically a Maori New Zealander too but have always just considered myself a New Zealander full stop. To take up the so called opportunities ie special treatment available to Maori now would be hypocritical & supporting the race based policies of this Government.
I take pride in having achieved what I have without any of the special privileges given to Maori.
I recommend quietly following joanna kidman on Twitter to keep on top of the ideology of some of the people pushing maorification the hardest.
A professor as vic uni who refers to all non Maori as "settlers", the theme coming through in most of her posts. Switch the races around and a lot of her posts would be clear examples of racist hate speech and she'd lose her job - but as a Maori she gets to say whatever she likes and anyone disagreeing must be a racist.
Standard illiberal reaction from the left, instead of looking at some of the underlying reasons behind the festering resentment. How's this Chris - can you please explain in the name of honoring the Treaty, how 'co-governance' - giving 50% of the vote to 20% of the population is reconciled with democracy? Us dozing Pakehas have no problems with giving everyone their equal due, but why do we all feel like the pendulum is getting pushed too far in the other direction to assuage Aunty Cindy's white privileged guilt.
Labour are happy to give away NZ's sovereign like we never had it, apologizing to people who were and still are here illegally, what a pathetic joke they are becoming.
And also entertaining the He Paupau report, when we already have the Treaty of Waitangi heavily written in law., we make our own laws, not the united nations.
So despite the fact that some of the things they have done have been good, I definitely won't be voting for them next time.
I fail to see how race based policy will make New Zealand a better place. I do not understand anything this government is doing. Labour is ramming its communist ideals down the throat of all New Zealanders. Labour was voted in based on a gender vote, and clearly not policy as they have achieved nothing but additional taxes separatism and a country heading backwards faster than the train from Hamilton to Auckland. All new Zealanders need to understand, you don't need 8000 spin doctors to sell the truth.
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.