By Chris Trotter*
The Crown is a fickle friend. Any political movement deemed to be colourful but inconsequential is generally permitted to go about its business unmolested. The Crown’s media, RNZ and TVNZ, may even “celebrate” its existence (presumably as proof of Democracy’s broad-minded acceptance of diversity).
Should the movement’s leader/s demonstrate a newsworthy eccentricity, then they may even find themselves transformed into political celebrities. The moment a political movement makes the transition from inconsequentiality to significance, however, then all bets are off – especially if that significance is born of a decisive rise in its parliamentary representation.
Te Pāti Māori (TPM) is currently on the cusp of making that crucial transition from political novelty to political threat. The decision of the former MP for Waiariki, Labour’s Tamati Coffey, to step away from his parliamentary career at the end of the current term will be welcome news to TPM’s male co-leader, Rawiri Waititi, who took the seat from Coffey in 2020. There is a good chance, now, for Waititi to turn the Māori seat of Waiariki into TPM’s anchor electorate.
Certainly, without Rawiri’s 2020 victory in Waiariki, TPM’s female co-leader, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, would not have been able to occupy the additional seat to which TPM became entitled under MMP’s convoluted rules of representation. Ngarewa-Packer’s presence in Parliament alongside Waititi did a lot more than simply double the party’s representation. The two politicians have grown into a powerful double-act: their flair for performative politics (a.k.a showmanship) both complementing and augmenting the pair’s uncompromising radicalism.
Waititi’s signature black Stetson makes him instantly recognisable in a House of Representatives tending towards the sartorially beige. Couple this cowboy persona with his bravura transformation of the humble necktie into a symbol of colonial oppression, and Waititi’s political style is nothing if not memorable. But, there is substance beneath the style – as evidenced by the critical role the only-just-elected Waititi played in defusing the Waikeria prison riot of January 2021.
Ngarewa-Packer is a similar mixture of style and substance. Beneath the radical-biker-chic lies a tireless worker for whanau, hapu and iwi, and a better-than-average grasp of the intricacies of indigenous politics – both foreign and domestic. Even more than Waititi, Ngarewa-Packer understands the dual mandate of TPM.
The party’s purpose is not simply to put runs on the board for Māori by playing the Pakeha’s parliamentary game to the tangata whenua’s best advantage, but to translate TPM’s presence in the Crown’s most important political institution into a revolutionary transformation of Aotearoa-New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Not since Harry Holland’s Labour Party first entered Parliament in 1919 has the Crown been confronted by such an uncompromising threat to the status quo.
And now, after a succession of polls documenting a four-fold increase in TPM’s share of the Party Vote, the Crown and its institutional defenders (what Māori nationalists describe, with considerable historical justification, as the “Settler State”) are having to come to terms with the alarming possibility that, post-October 14, TPM may have it in its gift the installation of a Labour-Green coalition government – on certain, non-negotiable conditions. What alarms the elite defenders of the status-quo the most, of course, is that they cannot be certain that Labour and the Greens will not accept those conditions.
Much will depend on how many, and which, Labour MPs survive the October cull. That, and the ultimate truth or falsity of Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ post-Jacinda Ardern transformation from Woke Warrior to Waitakere Man (via the Hutt Valley). Certainly, it is difficult to accept the Press Gallery’s positioning of Hipkins on the right of Labour’s Caucus. In the words of political journalist Graham Adams:
“Hipkins taking the lead role as 'The Man Who Wasn’t There' in Labour’s election script — hastily rewritten to accommodate Ardern’s resignation in January — is preposterous. It beggars belief that anyone would fall for his double act in posing as both a political innocent and a simple Westie ('I’m Just Chippy from the Hutt') but our mainstream journalists appear to have. Certainly they do not seem keen to point out that Hipkins is an ideologue who has been radically reshaping New Zealand education policy alongside Ardern for years, without any explicit electoral mandate to do so.”
Exactly which of these two, very different, political personalities Hipkins inhabits may turn out to be critical. If innocent “Chippy From The Hutt” turns out to be the political confection Adams clearly believes it to be, and “Hipkins The Ideologue” is the real Chris, then a Labour-Green Coalition – critically supported by TPM from the cross-benches – may herald the beginning of something really big.
TPM’s most sensible political strategy would be to resolutely reject becoming part of a formal coalition agreement, and to demand instead Labour-Green support for a tranche of constitutionally transformative legislative initiatives. The strategic virtue of binding TPM’s support to the passage of “Tiriti-centric” legislation is that any failure on the part of Labour and the Greens to facilitate such a transformation would immediately place TPM’s agenda at the heart of the next election, which its abstention on the Opposition’s inevitable Vote of Confidence would precipitate.
A suicidal strategy? Only if the party adopting it is indissolubly wedded to the constitutional status-quo. But, very clearly, this is not the position of TPM – even if it turns out to be that of Labour and the Greens. Representation in the House of Representatives is very far from being the ultimate objective of TPM. Both Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer have made it clear that their presence in the Settlers’ parliament should be regarded as a purely transitory state-of-affairs. The parliament TPM envisages will have an upper house composed, 50:50, of Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti. In the lower house, meanwhile, Māori representation will be legally entrenched – just one of many “basic laws” passed to give effect to the foundational promises of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer have no more interest in remaining permanent members of “New Zealand’s” House of Representatives than did Lenin and Trotsky in remaining permanent members of Tsar Nicolas II’s “democratically-elected” Duma. Like the Bolsheviks, TPM is a party of revolutionaries – not reformists.
As this reality explodes, like a grenade, in the consciousness of the Crown and its creatures, the days of patronising TPM will come to an abrupt halt. Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer will no longer be treated as entertaining eccentrics – but as serious threats. More and more reasons for them to be hurled from the House in October will be presented to the electorate. All this is likely to communicate to Māori voters, however, is that the Crown is frightened of TPM. It is difficult to conceive of a more compelling reason for Māori voters to come out in record numbers and vote for Te Pāti Māori.
*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.
76 Comments
Warning bells? Perhaps TPM's presence is necessary to rattle the old remaining vestiges of colonial complacency?
Never the less I am considerably concerned at the acceptability of race based politics in the 21st century, when there are plenty of examples that prove beyond any doubt what so ever that they are nothing more than just plain dangerous. Lets make it clear, the ills of the past cannot be undone. nor can they be compensated for, as there is simply not enough money in the world, nor any clear boundary as to when it will stop. Equally justice cannot be delivered through the creation of fresh injustice.
Dame Tariana Turia once stated that "Democracy has not served Maori well". In this statement there are big barbed arrows that point to the flaws of our current political system. Primarily that the ordinary folk on the street, middle class and lower are simply increasingly down trodden by the political and wealthy elites, irrespective of race. Maori in particular are fodder for the Maori political machine. That machine often invokes the phrase "tino rangatiratanga" interpreted as self-determination. But scrutiny of the political rhetoric brings the conclusion that self determination is not that of the individual, but of the elites as they create their own race based 'nation' where the citizens are essentially expected to do as they are told.
To me, true tino rangatiratanga begins at the individual level. Where our democratically elected Government understands who they truly serve and build a society where people have opportunities and are able to gain employment with decent working conditions, and create a life style to enable them to gain a good understanding of their own capabilities and are able to then determine their own future through freedom of choice. Some the 'free market' and a hands off Government has not delivered.
An alternative scenario might be that if Te Pāti Māori support for a Labour-Greens government became conditional on legislating a revolutionary transformation, then National or Act, recognising the will of the greater part of the New Zealand citizenry, would form a Grand Coalition with Labour-Greens to prevent it, or at the least not vote no confidence in the government.
You often hear people talk of "Maori elites" but I've never seen anybody ever names names as exemplars. Why?
Ghost concept? Strawman? Fear? Lack of comparators?
Do Maori families even get onto rich lists like NBR? Acknowledging that some iwi PSGEs have significant holdings, but on a per-individual basis many iwi's wealth wouldn't pay for a year at uni.
I'd love someone to bring some facts to the table.
At one stage if I recall correctly WP & NZF held all the Maori seats. That was largely because of a blow back against the complacency with which Labour had traditionally held them. Seems to me that the whole concept and spirit of the designated Maori seats was for an independent representation in parliament but that simply wasn’t really possible until the introduction of MMP. From what I understand the well considered acceptance of a coalition in the Key government was cooperative and productive and it seems unfortunate that TMP were then ousted by their electorate amid what appeared to be accusations of fraternisation, for want of a better word. TMP has now re-emerged in a much more aggressively subjective mode and it’s hard to imagine there is any chance of a stable coalition government, should they be involved. Yet if they represent what their electorate expects, then that must form legitimately, part of the political landscape, as that is exactly what the creation of the seats themselves set out to achieve in the first place.
The woke era is fast coming to an end. The swing back to normality will be harsh and there will be a lot of complaining, but not by the Maori Party. They will be gone.
The Maori party doesn't deliver anything at all, not for Maori or anyone. They are just grandstanders. Nothing more, nothing less. When the serious job of fixing the mess of the last decade starts, they have nothing to offer, so they will not be part of it.
Both the Labour party and the Maori party deliver nothing of any substance for the Maori, except (in the last few years), the resentment of a large part of the population as a result of the divisiveness that they actively promote. In the end, that will bite them hard.
I hope you’re right but unfortunately the average NZer doesn’t understand MMP and how a party that 5% voted for ends up calling the shots for the 95%.
NZF in 2017 is a classic example so it’s feasible that come Dec these two eccentrics could be holding enormous power in govt.
What is a 'woke fest', other than a sabre-rattling call to arms on talkback radio?
Can someone tell me what 'wokeness' actually is?
I keep seeing it in response to things like 'letting people choose their own name' which seems like it should be a pretty fundamental libertarian principle, unless there are hugely skewed ideas of when government should and shouldn't stay out of people's business - i.e. rules for me but not for thee.
Wokeness - An approach which is overall and on balance harmful to society, ignores context and counterpoints, and is ignorant of the wider ramifications of the position taken.
Under the pretense of being politically correct, the "woke" person is, ironically, asleep, in that they are ignorant of or unconcerned by the harms caused by their actions. Such harms may include:
• damage to freedom of expression and freedom of association
• the diminution of comedy, and artistic license in music, to the point that it becomes dull
• stifling of conversation
• fear of expressing an alternative opinion or calling out that which is evidently nonsense
• feelings of being browbeaten, helpless and living in a dystopian society
• diversion of societal focus away from more pressing issues affecting society
• the breakdown of language and societal structures
• discrimination and prejudice against others with particular characteristics - typically those who, in a particular location or organisation, are in a majority - under the guise of improving equality and acting on behalf of the minority.
Exactly, so this is exactly the SVB example. A bunch of people are put into upper management for 'diversity' reasons, rather than for their banking experience. They say nice things and give money away to other diverse causes. Except, they do know how banking works and they quickly go broke.
Diversity was a problem for SVB, but not in the way you mean. It was a lack of diversity in where it organised its assets i.e. in bonds & treasuries that were decreasing in value as interest rates rose. I don't believe it held any mortgages as a "normal" bank does, which may have mitigated a lot of these problems.
Sorry, but isn't this just a laundry list of things for an unoppressed majority to have something to complain about?
It's funny how the 'harden up' crowd have gone looking for ways in which they can be the victim, at the same time as they accuse everyone else of doing the same thing. Maybe they're just better at it than you are.
Bit hard to see it as anything other than patch protection from people who got to the top of the hill without any real work ethic and having the cards fall their way for so long that they don't actually know what to do in order to stay there, or if it's even possible to share.
Yea, see this is just froth in response to something you don't like. But thanks for proving my point.
Maybe you'd have more buy-in if existing power structures hadn't make a pig's ear of pretty much everything. After all, if the status quo was so overwhelmingly convincing, why would anyone challenge it? You know, on merit? That thing you guys are so convinced should underpin everything we do.
I think Zachary provided an excellent and well thought out definition. Not liking the fact that he has a robust answer for you, you have disengaged.
I can provide a further example for you: the recent censorship attempt of the word "fat" (amongst others) in Rould Dahl's books. The woke movement is that petty.
To me "wokeness" is a never ending inquisition to remove or replace anything that could be considered offensive to those that lack "power". Determining those that have power is of course in the hands of the inquisitors.
I didn't disengage, his list was just a lot of played out talking points that those protesting wokeness can't even uphold in consistency, which he then decided to follow up with a one-word response. But sure, I'll bite. Here's my problem with the 'anti-woke' fundamentalists: Freedom of speech is fine... as long as no one questions why things are the way they are. We should always select on merit... until it means the people who have biggest pieces of the pie and the control over who gets what have to justify why they're the ones deciding who gets what. It's about the state leaving people alone, but also not letting them call themselves by the name they want to be called. It's about having a small government, but also one that is emotionally invested in whether people sit down or stand to go to the bathroom.
It's just tantrums and inconsistency all the way down. Applying these talking points dispassionately to those who are decrying 'wokeness' tends to suggest they either don't like the prospect of change or just don't genuinely believe in the things they claim to, in which case it's generally a front for something a bit more unsavoury.
Weird how people think the owners of the material owe them something over and above their own ability to assert control of their IP?
But sure being able to re-work your own literature to whatever you deem more sensible or lucrative is somehow.. offensive?
Gosh, imagine if we had a phrase for a mob who stopped people from asserting control of their own property through trying to create a political narrative.
It can be a little bit dangerous if you take the SVB bank disaster as an example and the information coming out is correct
i) They had a 'diverse board', made up of white people and black people, and transgender people.
ii) Only one person with experience in banking (so the story goes).
iii) Gifted 78 million dollars to Black Live Matter, which it seems was stolen and used to purchase houses for the leaders of that woke organization.
iv) A risk manager who was more focused on building gender neutrality in the business.
None of these people listed should have actually worked there, but they did because of wokeness and kindness, you see it's really cool to have kind diverse people in the top jobs, they just cannot run the business and you then go broke, that is where the go woke, go broke saying comes from.
There is no room for these types of setups anymore. Organizations will move back to the best qualified, gets the job, and shareholders will enforce it as company managers have a duty to make a profit, not to be woke. So, as companies tighten their belts, all the diversity departments that contribute nothing will be gone, quickly followed by the climate change nutters I suspect.
That 'story' is just culture-war nonsense. The real reasons will be nothing to do with made-up story lines for Tucker Carlson. They will be more to do with bonds held-to-maturity and valued on that basis, but became needed to be sold early in a rising interest-rate environment, incurring large losses. The gender or diversity of the SVB treasury management will have nothing to do with it. You may even find those SVB officials were white males!
I do believe ESG played a part. "They will be more to do with bonds held-to-maturity and valued on that basis, but became needed to be sold early in a rising interest-rate environment, incurring large losses." This is the end result and more than one person is likely to be involved in not keeping the eye on the ball. The buck stops with the board and having a policy of diversity for diversities sake is not the way to run a business.
This may be a repost. https://www.svb.com/news/company-news/svb-releases-2022-environmental-s…
Maybe it's the news. I know you have to filter it, because it's mostly BS, but there are a few points that seem common to most of the commentary. Diverse does not mean non-white, it also means anything apart from males. Lots of females on that board, including a well-known (woke) gender activist, and the no-risk management for a year appears to be a real story. I can't tell which one is the trans-gender from the picture, sorry.
Where was the interest rate hedging? where was the duration matching?, I don't care what gender of the alphabet soup they want to choose , this was a lack of PROFESSIONAL risk management and governance. Sure anyone can run a bank and anyone can run 3 waters.
Next up drag queens on AUKUS subs... What could POSSIBLY go wrong......
It makes me smile when I read the comments about not wanting race based politics in NZ when we have had nothing but race based politics since the first Parliament was inaugurated in 1854. When Maori outnumbered the Pakeha population roughly 2 to 1. The performance of Parliament since then has been strongly skewed in favour of the pakeha population in terms of immigration and any means by which to transfer land from Maori. The first Maori seats were created in 1867, Years after the land confiscation acts were implemented into law. One of the unintended consequences of the past few years with covid and the natural disasters in NZ is that the MSM has shown the massive disadvantages we still endure as a people to the younger generation of Maori. We may finally become a political force in this country through TPM. Which will rattle many cages and induce a large amount of threats and sabre rattling.
Doubt it. Most Maori want to succeed and live a normal life, which is easily achievable as long as the basics are done right, i.e. education being a big aspect.
No one will ever get ahead or live a normal life joining these guys. They are more about making noise and making money from themselves.
If you want to hark back to the 1800s, that's fine. The world has moved on, and it isn't going back.
And you prove my point. How has race based politics worked for Maori over that period? Why would you think Maori driven race based politics would be any better than Pakeha driven ones? As i indicated, you cannot deliver justice by creating fresh injustice. that only becomes revenge, and that will only build division.
The real problem is the style of parliamentary politics not serving the people it is supposed to in a democratic country. Some cases in point; currently Maori are over represented in parliament on a per capita basis, but why are people still saying that the Maori voice is not being heard? Many newer generations are still arguing that Boomer causes still dominate the outcomes of Government policies. But with almost no Boomer politicians left why is that? The real reasons is that the politicians, no matter their ideology or race are too self serving, and entitled, and too hard to get rid of if they don't perform.
From their perspective (TPM perspective) they are under-represented. The problem is that the Maori contingent in Act and National are educated, conservative, and have relevant experience and all those good things, and the Labour and TPM Maori contingent don't. So Labour and TPM make ludicrous statements like that are not real Maori or look at things through a white lens etc. The Maori contingent in National and Act is not insignificant either. So, when TPM make these silly statements about parliament not representing them, they are excluding all those Maori that simply don't agree with them and have no time for them as well.
CT as always is onto it. I am picking race will be the 2023's defining election issue. As it is currently sponsored by the Labour Party, it is currently destroying everything that works & replacing it (I believe) with everything that doesn't work (pun intended).
It is one thing to be angry at a system which you think has done you ill, but it is quite another to replace with something better. And better for who? There is no better system on planet earth than the democratic based societies. To destroy that is to destroy everything, including your future, whatever that is. Sadly TPM cannot see that far with their angry eyes. One wonders what they can see at all, other than the rage which has sustained them for most of the last millennium in one form or another. Anger solves nothing. Anger creates more anger, which I suggest is not very helpful in this situation.
As I have posited before, The Treaty of Waitangi is dead. The zombie version that underwrites today's grievance industry is not solving anything - other than creating more anger (now) on all sides of the discussion. This nation either needs a new constitution & we need international third party help in creating it or there could be a civil war if we're not careful.
Anything other than win-win for the team of 5 million is a lose-lose. Or perhaps TPM only wants a team of 1 million?
John Tamihere is waiting in the wings for maybe a list seat. But at least the chance to extract his political pound of flesh from the party that refused him ( a former Labour cabinet minister) as a mere member in 2019. It is ironic that some of the millions that Labour funded to the Waipareira Trust during the covid era are now helping to finance TPM political campaign.
Lets not get to carried away with the power of the smaller parties. National and labour together can counter all the other parties combined. Even if it was only on confidence and supply , allowing them to vote against the government on minor issues.
And lets have some balance , Can we have have an article on how crazy and unworkable most of ACT's soundbite policies actually are?
For a party of one MP at the time, Charter Schools, End of life bill and three strikes shows the actual effectiveness of ACT's policies compared with Labour/Green/TMP legislation that is flawed ineffective and of no value to New Zealanders, did I mention the $100 Billion of debt they have created and for which the value is dubiuos.
I actually felt the first few lines could easily be attributed to ACT. Seymour is a rich man prop with so many holes in his arguments that its a surprise you can even see the man. On his recent talk here in Wellington - he asked the audience who listened to The Platform and when a fair few hands went up, he suggested they get the app. I walked out at that point as I realised exactly what I was dealing with. But yeah.. lets attack Te Pati Maori for being 'ridiculous'.
They got 1.17% of the overall vote but got two MPs as once you win an electorate seat you get additional MPs based on your percentage. Same way ACT get a disproportionate number of MPs thanks to National gifting them Epsom. At least TPM won’t their seat fair and square in a fight with Labour.
Whatever any agenda, from any party, from the performance of government, I think any citizen's major concern is likely to be less about content, but more about basic competence to deliver anything.
At the moment the process of change - polytechnic amalgamation, transport and water infrastructure development, health system restructuring and all the rest - seem to be conducted by setting off in doctrinally-driven hope in the direction of undisclosed or, worse, unknown objectives.
The processes used take obscene amounts of time and money for which there seems to be little or no accountability, and are so rigid that adapting to changing circumstances seems impossible, locking in group-think that brooks no in-process evaluation and changes.
Just so much of it looks like magical thinking, untempered by data, flexibility, and experience.
https://harvardpolitics.com/a-revision-of-malaysias-racial-compact/
Such active discrimination against ethnic minorities has pervaded every aspect of Malaysian society. The modern system originated as an economic endeavor — the New Economic Policy — meant to reduce the income inequality that existed between poorer Malays and wealthier minority groups. Yet, despite the program’s intent, these benefits have yet to reach the Malay majority. Instead, only a small group of elites benefit from the system, which has entrenched an unfettered network of patronage that lines the pockets of the very few at the expense of the many, minority or otherwise.
Ultimately, a race-based approach towards policy planning obscures the class divisions that perpetuate systems of inequality. Malaysia’s racial policies have unfortunately failed to equitably redistribute wealth, and its tendency towards policy along racial lines must be reconsidered to address the real challenges of Malaysian society.
https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/our_constitution
My quick look summary of policy is "removal of some structural disadvantages for Maori, and redo resource allocation to protect environments, especially water"
Too right. They have no right to be there now, actually, not how it is currently, as the Maori seats were not supposed to exist anymore after MMP was implemented. Disbandment should be the last act of MMP implementation and it should happen without delay,
The TPM can then try to get elected into parliament in a general election with no race-based seats. They are welcome to do so since we live in a democracy.
They won't get anywhere near being elected as they have such a small following, (only about 5% of Maori actually support them), and their utterings are generally racist in nature, so generally, no-one supports them, which is what happens when you have poor policies like TPM do.
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.