By Chris Trotter*
The extraordinary muddle into which the Labour Government manoeuvred itself over “Three Waters” was entirely avoidable. At its heart lay the all-too-common failing manifested over-and-over again by the senior Pakeha politicians of both major parties. Unconsciously, for the most part, Pakeha political leaders consign “all that Māori stuff” to the agenda space reserved for non-urgent and/or too-difficult-to-explain issues.
This Pakeha failure to treat Māori issues with the same seriousness as those referred to them by Treasury, MFAT, MBIE, Health, Education and Social Development is made a lot easier when Māori colleagues are willing to take responsibility for their own advancement themselves. In the case of Three Waters, Labour’s leadership was quite happy to leave pretty much the whole thing to Nanaia Mahuta. Until it all started turning to custard.
When that happened the response of Labour’s Pakeha leadership was instructive. First, the person in charge when everything started to go wrong, Jacinda Ardern, decided it was time to go and do something else. Second, Ardern’s successor, Chris Hipkins, took the whole Three Waters project away from Mahuta, demoted her, and then sent her into what looked suspiciously like near-permanent exile. Third, Mahuta’s replacement, at the helm of the now renamed “Affordable Water Reform”, was that emphatically Pakeha bloke, Kieran McAnulty.
The political meaning of these decisions was not at all difficult to understand. In the words of Bob Dylan: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”
“You” may not, but a surprisingly large fraction of the New Zealand news media found it well-nigh impossible to feel (let alone explain) the wind-shift. Very few commentators were willing to call Hipkins’ decisions what any reasonable observer could hardly avoid calling them: the ruthless reassertion of Pakeha power and control. Nor was there much discernible enthusiasm for reporting on the ramifications of the Labour Māori Caucus’s successful defence of the co-governance elements of Three Waters. A more hands-on style of Pakeha leadership had clearly come at the price of keeping co-governance in play. How else to explain McAnulty becoming a more eloquent defender of tino rangatiratanga than Willie Jackson?
There was a similar failure on the part of many journalists to link the defection of the Labour MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Meka Whaitiri, with the Government’s arguably racist “bread-and-buttering” of Māori policy. A gleeful John Tamihere might hail Labour’s loss of Whaitiri as Te Pāti Māori’s gain, but he forbore from explaining her departure in terms of the Labour leadership’s unconscious prejudices concerning the responsibility – or otherwise – of their Māori colleagues. Hipkins’ refusal to reinstate Whaitiri as a full member of Cabinet may, or may not, have been justified, but the Māori woman who leap-frogged the Ikaroa-Rawhiti MP into Cabinet, Northland MP Willow-Jean Prime, presents as a very different sort of Māori politician to the woman who preserved the flax-roots nurtured by her kaiako, Parekua Horomia.
The defenestration of Elizabeth Kerekere raises some very similar questions about just how far down the road that leads to “transformation” Pakeha politicians – even Green politicians – are prepared to go with their Māori colleagues. It’s one thing to blithely swear fealty to the “principles” of te Tiriti o Waitangi, quite another to put those principles into practice in ways that ruffle the feathers of the status quo. Blaming the world’s ills on “Cis White Males” has a revolutionary ring to it, but it is not at all the same as promising te iwi Māori control over Aotearoa’s water, or restoring “stolen” Māori land to its rightful custodians.
While the polls continue to identify Te Pāti Māori as the holder of the votes necessary to keep Labour and the Greens on the Treasury benches, however, the contemplation of revolutionary demands is something the centre-left will find extremely difficult to avoid.
Of course, contemplation and implementation are two very different things. Jacinda Ardern contemplated a revolutionary anti-capitalist transformation in the early days of her prime-ministership. More than that, she went to Waitangi and instructed Māori to hold her government accountable for how faithfully it upheld the principles of the Treaty. Ardern soon discovered, however, that implementing Labour’s promises was a lot harder than making them. This was serious, because nothing is more likely to cause a revolution than raising the expectations of the poor and the marginalised – and then failing to meet them.
Ultimately, the management of expectations may turn out to be as big a problem for Te Pāti Māori as it is for Labour and the Greens. If Whaitiri is going to win Ikaroa-Rawhiti for her new party, then she is going to have to paint her former Māori colleagues as politicians who talk big, but, whenever the Pakeha majority shows signs of restiveness, allow their colleagues to slam on the policy brakes and throw Labour’s political vehicle into reverse.
It is vital that Te Pāti Māori does not do the same. Its promises of transformation must be unequivocal and non-negotiable. Either, Labour and the Greens embrace the revolution, or, they shuffle-off to the Opposition benches. Regardless of the centre-left’s choice, Te Pāti Māori must not loosen its grip on the radical bunting.
It is difficult to see the Labour Party that abandoned the transformational policy agenda of its Māori caucus for a “bread-and-butter” manifesto being willing to radicalise itself in sympathy with the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Frankly, it is easier to see Labour quietly reconciling itself to electoral defeat. Sitting back and watching National and Act attempting to solve New Zealand’s rapidly growing list of intractable problems must, surely, have its attractions?
But, what if the New Zealand electorate refuses to let Labour throw the electoral fight? What if Te Pāti Māori mobilises younger voters in unprecedented numbers? What if the Greens do the same? What if, in spite of Labour’s best efforts, the electorate swings sharply to the left? What if, when all the votes are counted, National and Act simply do not have enough to form a government? What then?
One answer is that Labour and National might suddenly discover that they have more in common with one another than they do with the parties representing the extremes, and agree to form a Grand Coalition. Such a solution would, however, offer only a short-term respite, since the processes of radicalisation on both the right and the left would, almost certainly, intensify.
The choice facing voters in three years’ time might not even include Labour and National. “All that Māori stuff” may no longer permit the reassertion of Pakeha power and control. It is even possible the Pakeha may no longer want it.
*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.
110 Comments
Willies been playing silly obfuscation games with the OIA, in this case a potential criminal offence.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/05/willie-jackson-called-o…
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0009/latest/DLM431194.h…
(Acknowledgement to norightturn)
There's no Principles, Partnerships or co governance/government in the ToW.
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/04/bruce-moon-abuse-of-human-…
While CT might be correct is describing the coming racialised politics, he avoids discussing several concerning aspects.
The roots of the racial based politics lie firmly in the appalling quality and consequences of socio-economic policies coming out of government for at least the last 50 years which have decidedly driven the lower socio-economic classes further down the living standard ladder, and continues to do so, even beginning to effect the middle classes. While Maori are not the only racial group caught in this, they are by far the largest and provide a significant platform for the emerging Maori political elite. What is equally evident is that while all this is providing a loud voice by Maori interests, it does not appear to be producing any suggestion of policies which will change the inequities that have resulted, other than increasing dependency. Nothing positive will come from race based politics. South Africa is a clear example of that.
Lets applaude last nights TV1 Good Sort. A guy almost single handly, providing quality food for free to 80 families with no questions asked. Just, here you go, see you next week. Pataka kai.
As they say, give a man a fish... One person thought it was cool to ask if he could have the trolley too.
I've got Maori exhaustion.
Literally all media is endlessly crying about the misery of Maoris, endlessly money must be spent to ensure outcome sameness with the White population. Why don't they do it themselves? They receive endless money from the state, they have endless armies of crying White liberals to volunteer their time to this White man's burden.
Why are they so incapable of actually improve their conditions? What obligation do they have back to the wider society?
White people just exist as tax cattle and work horses for this indignant and entitled victim class of political figures.
Also I must say Chris comes across as the biggest cuckold. Worship the rising tide of the underman, the coalition of ressentiment. Why not just advocate for the working class, something the Labour party did once. It hasn't delivered a single fucking thing for the working man despite 6 years in government.
I can only suggest you educate yourself with regard to the history of this country, The history meticulously chronicled in the multiple Treaty of Waitangi Report findings around Aotearoa to gain an understanding of what the Maori experience has been like since 1840. I am of course making the assumption that you have not done so already. If that is the case then I actually feel sorry for you.
What a pretentious and snooty post.
The Treaty of Waitangi is an institution with a vested interest in the permanent continuity of historic research into whatever injustice it feels it should remedy. I do not consider it a legitimate instituition. It exists to for Maori historians and academics to grift money out of the eternal bleeding wound of race relations. It will never end as an instituition because the historic grievances never end. At what point will the grievance be healed? When there is outcome sameness for all ethnic groups in New Zealand? At what point is the wound healed or is it a perpetual horror?
The colonisation of New Zealand was exceptionally liberal, well meaning and well behaved towards Maori by comparison to any other colonisation of any other people in history. Michael King and James Belich, in their respective works, more or less concluded much of the condition.
Do I get reparations for the Norman Invasions? For the endless miseries of my ancestors? My ancestors were thrown off their ancestral land by the Highland Clearances and the Potato famines, roughly coinciding with the displacement of Maori. They aren't even remembered, let alone known by more than a tiny percentage of peoples. Not a chance of reparations either.
Maori do a good job of being ethnocentric as it is. White people should also be as ethnocentric and demanding as Maori are. The Treaty of Waitangi as rent seeking grift is an injustice towards the White population because we are the tax base providing the productivity to support its repayments for the Crown to settle these grievances it takes responsibility for.
When you are degraded, attacked and disenfranchised, never represented in name yet expected to bear the responsibility for any wrongs, we should remember this is abusive, no different to an abusive partner in a relationship. When you are discriminated against in education placement, in the medical system (elective surgery waitlists), in funding, you are being definitely told you are worth less in the eyes of the state. Why should White people bear these abuses?
The basic truth is WM that there is simply not enough money in the world to compensate for past injustices. VM makes that point in a round about way. Colonisation was a reality of the 17th and 18th centuries across the world by the European powers. VM makes the point that Maori were treated much better than most if not all other indigenous races. But as he also states the colonisation didn't start here. It happened in the highlands of Scotland and Ireland and across Europe, and indeed peoples through out almost every country in the world can lay claim to have been colonised by one power or another at sometime in their past. If we are to hold people to account for the sins of our fathers, how would you fare when it is your turn? The real answer is to demand our Government to deliver real democracy, to be accountable to the people, all of them, not just race based or ideological interest groups or big money. Co governance is not a solution. It is a sop to Maori political elites who will use it to feather their own pockets, build their status power and privilege while delivering not one jot to the people. Just like all politicians. The alternative is to be colonised again by our own political elites and consigned to modern forms of slavery where we are expected to be grateful for the crumbs they magnanimously hand out to the masses.
He's not the only one! I would say , just looking at his up ticks 👍👍 ) compared to yours) that he is part of a growing anti Maori elite uprising.
Also you obviously didn't read his post nor understand it! Thus the reason you replied the way you did
You should open your eyes to reality and not the spin fed to you by people who gain financial benefit by forgoing moral and ethical honesty
One problem with a grievance battle between Māori & Pakeha in today's NZ is the large third group - recent immigrants who have no responsibility for NZ past history. Should we have tri-governance? Can my family be left out of any reparations - either the giving or the receiving.
recent immigrants who have no responsibility for NZ past history
Why would you hold non-Māori born in New Zealand any more responsible for their ancestors' actions?
...in any case, the term Pākehā is imprecise enough that it can apply to any non-Māori New Zealander.
Yip!, Nicely put VM, Why ? And let's seek redress from Maori for all the violence committed against kiwis in recent times !... Or is it ok to keep their violent oppressions (of their own people/ tribes aye chief TeRapuraha and your killing of thousands of Maori ) going on forever why kiwis pay them for the privilege.
If you take an objective view, you'd recognise the abuses are being born by Maori, not "white people". Your over-egged annoyance with maori receiving breadcrumbs doesn't compare with systemic and generational abuse they have received from the crown. I am grateful that societal changes will quickly make your views (and those of a similar perspective) increasingly irrelevant. Your outdated colonial mindset is dangerously divisive and has no useful value in modern Aotearoa.
Whakahokia You should re introduce yourself to the truth and not the twisted Maori lies...
This is the facts based on recorded history .. not myth and spin!
https://nopunchespulled.com/2023/05/01/bruce-moon/
Read it with both eyes open and no baised " take take take" optics
A close relative once thought the same as you and I get it too - Te Tiriti is the gift that keeps on giving!
Fact is - it exists. The Crown signed that deal, and not with any other group. However, we’ve done our best to ignore that fact for 180 years.
This family member used to complain about Māori on the dole AND complained even more when Maori were involved in businesses like fishing & forestry as part of Treaty settlements. But you can’t complain about both situations - either you accept welfare support OR you accept their desire to create wealth via capitalism.
Co-governance was a dumb issue for non-Māori to die in a ditch over. It was an attempt to involve iwi in local decision-making - it was creating buy-in to a new way of operating water resources. Water utilities ALREADY consult with iwi to help get projects over the line. In reality, co-governance just formalised the status quo.
Now, stymied at the local government level, resisted in business, still overly-reliant on welfare and blocked when part of government - what are Māori and their political reps meant to do?
So make a final settlement. End the political grift once and for all. Sign a new treaty to lay out terms for superseding the treaty. The issue with the treaty is it is a very short, very small document with vague goals presented. It has been used in legal interpretation through the Kritarchy to impose very unpopular agendas and obligations on the State.
Co-governance is retarded primarily because it will slow everything down to a crawl with demands of inclusion in decision making. We need the opposite, we need less consultation on everything. Too many things are consulted and negotiated to death. It takes too long to make decisions as it is on even small matters. How many infrastructure projects languish because it took 10 years to consult everyone's opinions?
Also since when were Iwi legitimate political entities comparable with local councils? Are they democratically elected, constitutionally defined institutions? The primary issue is they have none of the required accountability which democratic representatives do. Also why should they have an unjustified proportion of the vote?
The legitimate terms for co-governance can be this. If the number of Maori electorate role voters exceeds 1/n councillors as a percentage, a seat can be allocated as a dedicated Maori seat. So if Maori electorate role voters were 20% of an electorate, 20% of seats would be designated as Maori seats. That would be a completely fair system which I see as broadly acceptable. But the iwi as political representative body is not.
As for the Dole, I don't complain about the Dole because it sucks awfully being on the Dole.
You have certainly encapsulated my wishes Chris regarding Te Pati Maori and throwing my tiny bit of support behind it. There are so many previously non-aligned drivers pointing towards a possible redrawing of our political landscape. Driven by covid deprivation, housing desperation, cost of feeding the whanau, the non-taxing of the rich, the resistance to our genuine Maori wishes to rightfully engage in local and national politics. The compounding stresses behind these issues are coming to a head right now. I discovered myself last night the fury and desperation of our gen x and y youngsters with regard to their inability to buy a house in Aotearoa for the last 10 years. I was and am still shocked by it. To the extent it is a forbidden conversation item for them socially. Don’t go there type stuff as it is such a depressing subject. I despair for them as a group. We simply must get house prices down to affordable. We are destroying the mental health of our younger generations currently. There is very real anger brewing out there in not just our youth but their older cohorts. They are sick and tired of being shafted by the ‘system’. For mine Te Pati Maori offers the only viable political group to challenge the status quo as they will not be bullied or intimidated by the ruling elites in this country. The Greens offer a modicum of possibilities but I suspect they are riven by internal politics as you suggest and lack the courage to change direction and change their policies to make a difference. I live in hope.
Hi Whakahokia Mai, (and maybe others on here)
This might explain why people you encounter as hostile or angry....
We hold many beliefs. Some of these beliefs matter little to us. For example the statement may be made "apples are bad for you". To most people finding out new evidence the apples are in fact bad for your health would probably not cause much of a reaction.
The difference is when the beliefs we hold have become central to our identity. What happens when you are the author of an apple-based cook-book, or you sell apples for a living, or maybe you are a YouTuber well known for eating apples every day for your health?
For these people, they face a 'paradigm shift'. This is extremely uncomfortable and energy-consuming for the human brain, as we need to restructure our very understanding of ourselves in the world.
We respond physiologically (in the brain) to this type of harsh conflicting information the same way we respond to physical attacks "fight or flight". If you challenge people's key beliefs in an MRI (brain scanner) you see it light up in the same places as when people are physically threatened.
The brain defends itself from this information that seeks to 'destroy it'.
This is often why we feel like the things people say are hurtful and a personal attack, when, read carefully, they are actually quite pragmatic and compassionate.
The biggest issue with labours Maori caucus and TePati Maori is...
they're all freaking dodgy!!!
would you trust any of them with a balanced and fair view
Would you trust them with sticking to the policies they are voted in on
The whole lot have seperatist racially devisive agendas.
We are become south Africa and I can see racial wars if te pati Maori have any control
The Maori caucus will split with Labour after defeat. Labour as we know it is gone.
Some are just getting out earlier then others..... Older pakeha Labour voters, already squeezed in the middle but keen for improved services, will not vote for more Maori gov departments (like health) split along racial lines.... neither will Indian or Chinese voters. Labour is gone here, NZ cannot afford two service providers in all the fields.
Chris - I'm still waiting for you to make a serious attempt at answering the question that is at the core of this country - how to reconcile (some) Maori aspirations for partnership through co-governance, with democracy. I find your continual dancing around this question pretty exasperating, and disingenuous.
Ok let me answer it for you. Co-governance isn't democracy, despite McNulty's blithe assertions. Sooner that's out in the open, and we know where the other 83% of us will stand, the better. This is the biggest constitutional question in this country for the last 100 years, and the silence of the left, so called champions of democracy, is deafening. But then that's the cynical game plan isn't it.
Co-governance could be acceptable if there was no power of veto, but if 83% of the country disagree with 17%, then you have a big issue.... IMHO in 95% of governance decisions all parties would be able to form workable compromise.. How would the 5% be resolved? Would Maori be able to accept that the power of veto could be overt tuned in these cases? What is Maori seems more like a collection of business interests along iwi lines? How will Iwi agree without Jenny Shipley mediating?
As far as I know there is no need for Iwi to be democratic or represent their people. I thought we where moving away from basing vote on someone heritage I guess I was wrong.
Back to an aristocracy , and open racism, but we have picked a different group so its all good.
I have absolutely no idea what co-governance is or looks like. I am as confused as everyone else. Until the term co-governance is defined it is a waste of time discussing it. My personal preference is that the Maori population uses our voting power through Maori centric political parties. Not mainstream political parties where our aspirations are subsumed at the drop of a hat. Just like any other ideological or ethnic group forms a party in a democracy. If Te Pati Maori can capture and coalesce that voting power and translate it into crossing the 5% MMP voting threshold plus Maori electorate seats then that will translate into political power and influence where we get the chance of a seat at the top table. I just hope that we are finally waking up to the fact that we must band together to gain real political influence in our homeland.
WM you are appearing somewhat naive. On a per capita basis Maori have more representation in parliament today than any other group. So if the spectrum of Maori concerns are not being heard in the seats of power, ask yourself why? And then ask yourself why you would expect that to change if Te Pati Maori get in. There is a lot of discussion on the effects of economic policies on Maori today, and there has been for decades, but what difference has it made? Why do you think it would change if TPM get in?
The problem is not institutionalised racism as TPM and others would have you believe, but poor economic policies shaped to favour the rich and powerful over the people of NZ. That has been the case for at least the last 50 years and will not change any time soon.
This election is ripe for manipulation. Changing from General role to the Maori role is now allowed in an election year. Up to July 13th this year. If you claim to be Maori then you can go on the Maori roll. It is relatively easy to update your details online with only a drivers license or a passport.
Labour supporters who happen to reside in safe National seats ( or very safe Labour seats) should consider the option. You still get a party vote of course. But without a seat win the Maori Party are unlikely to make it into parliament with the 5% threshold.
Winning vote count for Maori seats was 13642,10256,12160,14932,14277,12389. 25k-30k total votes cast in each of those electorates. Three of those seats were won with very low majorities. An extra couple of thousand eligible voters could easily swing those seats. Epsom had 42k votes cast with 10k going to the Labour candidate. East Coast had 42k votes cast and the Labour candidate won with a 6k majority.
Bigotry = obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Racism = the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
I have never been further from agreement with you Chris.
Whaddya mean? "Very few commentators were willing to call Hipkins’ decisions what any reasonable observer could hardly avoid calling them: the ruthless reassertion of Pakeha power and control. "
While members of the Maori caucus were responsible for explaining Three Waters or co-governance, there was no explanation at all. This is madness.
This Maori vs Pakeha rhetoric makes me so sad and it doesn’t reflect modern NZ. Both Debbie Ngarewa Packer and Elizabeth Kerekere have Irish mothers and Marama Davidson is married to a pakeha man. My kids have Maori Whakapapa but no strong cultural connection. I visited Waikato War sites around Rangariri and Te Awamutu recently. What the British Army did in the 1860s was a war crime, but prior to this Maori and Pakeha lived well together and ran successful farms and milling businesses. I want to see a vision of common purpose rather than further separation by racial identity.
Of the four sides of my family I have Maori relatives on two sides. In keeping with the general trend these days I have lost touch with most of my Maori, and Pakeha, relatives (the older ones have passed away of course) that used to turn up on family get-togethers during many weekends during the late 1950s and early 1960s. The family glue that held us together those days was my grandparents' generation. Anyway, from the odd recent report, I believe all current relatives are doing well and getting on with life.
Incidentally, one of the Maori attendee's at these family functions was Harry Dansey, a Maori cultural historian who used to write a Saturday Maori culture column in the "Auckland Star" a now defunct late-afternoon newspaper. He was also New Zealand's second Race Relations Conciliator. He was accorded great esteem by all relatives Maori and Pakeha. My father was knowledgable on Maori culture having taught Maori children in Hicks Bay on the East Coast during his country service after the war.
What I'm saying is that neither Maori or Pakeha have been lily-white, and I don't see the point of pushing a revisionist history exclusively condemning Pakeha.
When will the racism end.
My children are as much a New Zealander as any other child whether they are 2nd generation or 20th generation.
I find the notion that someone has a preferential right to govern anything based on their race offensive.
Lets just have equal rights for all and forget all this equal outcomes nonsense.
The radicalized left or right will never be able to deliver anything. They thrive off chaos, noise, labels, lining up to play the victim, and disruption.
They can't deliver healthcare, council services, high-quality education, or roading. That boring stuff is left to the middle, and it's why I'll always vote in the middle. Even our current Labour government, who were quite far to the left (at least coming in) from what I could tell have found delivering on anything very difficult.
TOP?
The spectrum is not as simple as that though. ACT are to the left of National on issues such as abortion rights and euthanasia, they are economic and social liberals whereas National are more socially conservative. NZ doesn't have clear left and right in the way the US does.
Far too much attention is given to what co-governance might look like or function like, when the real focus of our attention and learning ought to be on how Māori governance/tikanga functions. And we've recently had so many examples of marae governance kicking into action in the wake of the cyclone in the Hawkes Bay, e.g.,
https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/how-a-marae-supported-its-communit…
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/country-calendar/episodes/s2023-e11
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/cyclone-gabrielle-loca…
This is how real stuff gets done in Māori communities. The more autonomy these communities have to run their own affairs - the better for all of NZ to my mind. Iwi and hāpu provide us with a home grown example of localism in sociopolitical operation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_(politics)
So much to herald it and so much to learn from it.
Is that you jacinda . The last thing you want is that.
There's a world of difference between throwing some heavily tax payer subsidized Kai and sleeping bags together at the local marae for 200 people and running a city of 500,000 people!
You should engage the grey matter before trying to be kind for no reason other than wokeness jacinda!
Not trying to be kind, just pointing out facts as I see them. I'd far rather have this kind of governance/leadership - informed by tikanga - around me in a crisis than this kind;
That you haven't experienced maanakitanga on a marae first hand is a shame. Perhaps someday you will be given the opportunity - it will be a moving experience I can assure you.
I don't see how joining up different ways of thinking with respect to sociopolitical action can be divisive. Surely it is unifying, provided that is, that all participants respect one another and the alternate backgrounds and perspectives each individual brings to the table.
When you think about it - nature thrives/survives on the degree and maintenance of its biodiversity. Why should we think human relationships and endeavors should be any different?
Have you ever viewed kina barrens? They are an interesting visual analogy to a monocultural society.
The comments by Shaft (I'm assuming as in a dick?) etc add nothing constructive to the debate and are in sharp contrast to Kate and Whakahokia Mai, and lesser extent Waikato Home and HW2, who are restrained and make their points calmly and with maturity.
It really doesn't matter who wins the election, or what you think of co-governance (whatever that is), it will not impact the cultural and economic rennaissance of Maori. The generation of Maori going through University now are better educated, mostly fluent in Te Reo and far more aggressive in pursuing Maori sovereignty than my generation ever was.
I would wager most of you would not dare repeat the remarks you make here in your workplace or in front of Maori. Kind of sad like the Julian Batchelor audience, scared and ignorant, life's ne'er do wells.
"Did you really use the " I'm not racist I've got Maori friends" line though, that is quite funny." Te Kooti in my time I have come to understand that very few in NZ is genuinely racist. Most, irrespective of origin though, are fairly short on tolerance when they strike someone with an attitude. Mostly that attitude comes across as being 'special' because of who they were born, or some level of entitlement over that of everyone around them. Today I see racism every day, and it is invariably not from pakeha.
None of that though denies that the impact of government economic policies are significantly negative for lower socio-economic groups which tend to be dominated by Maori,. And this is an on-going consequence of the racist policies of early colonial governments of the 1800's and perhaps the early 1900's.
https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/03/30/a-school-of-strength-and-charac…
It isn't a unique particularity of Maori. Similar cultures of self help, self governance, and self responsibility were the norm of the 19th and early 20th century.
It is unfortunately a lost spirit today.
Great link, VM. I agree, all humans have this agency/capacity - as the article points out, the age of managerialism stifled that. I recall the push during the neoliberal era to separate policy and operational functions of government/governance. That managerialism ideology forced on governance practice and structures, has had serious implications for the efficiency and effectiveness of our centralised public service.
NZ and the US have much in common in terms of pioneer/frontier nations.
We'll get back to that spirit lost soon enough, I suspect. I think that future energy scarcity and climate adjustment/adversity will necessitate growing localism/collective effort and a greater role for community/self-governance. We will come to re-appreciate the jack-of-all-trades spirit and knowledge going forward.
Mauri ora!
I think you may be overly academic in your analysis there Kate. Community spirit is directly proportional to the spare time you have. Before I retired I was working 6 or 7 days a week and did virtually no community work. Now I find 90% of what I do is for somebody else. The modern way of both partners working to make ends meet is why community is waning.
Yes, the two-adult working family has been a seriously negative game-changer for society for sure. One of the very basic reasons that I support a UBI as it recognises and addresses exactly that problem.
Here's a really great example of Eric Crampton arguing for local agency with respect to the matter of climate change adaptation - I totally support his stance here. Communities banding together to solve their own problems. As he points out - a number of regulatory changes need to occur for this type of self-help neighbourhood action to occur. But it is most certainly where we need to go going forward;
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/why-we-should-individually-decide-how-to-ada…
As an approach, it stands in direct contrast to the more widely supported 'academic' approach to centralised planning of retreat from hazards as expressed here;
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/who-moves-and-who-pays-lessons-from-past-of-…
Sadly, this government is going in the latter direction.
You want Maori to take responsibility for themselves? They cant even keep their own kids safe despite Oranga Tamariki now leaving them to deal with their kids, nor can they even get them to turn up to school. https://figure.nz/chart/ArLDOAkWunBAKJWj-VmMM6xKpZpT1Hkea
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, especially from well meaning authors. Marae history shows countless times urban Māori had to fill the void and Iwi groups have been very slow to get involved in social services. The mechanism through covid do not illustrate close relationships and engagement with their people.
Fascinating commentary with perspectives from diverse angles.
Personally, I am deeply concerned about the radical Maori vision. In blanket terms, it appears to be apartheid. The end result of a two-tier Governance system will be civil disharmony and societal degradation. Unelected elders within Maori communities that hold veto power over critical resources will eventually become corrupted. It’s when, not if! This is not a racist comment, rather an admission of homo sapien’s fallibility.
I also blatantly refuse to accept that myself, nor my biological family, are somehow not spiritually connected to New Zealand! Despite complete absence of Maori blood, I am, will always be, a spiritual New Zealander! Nor shall I ever take any responsibility, nor feel any guilt, for the actions of any ancestor. We are judged by our actions today, period. This pervasive massage that we must feel guilt for ancestral activities is a most dangerous mental violation for our youth. It’s a narcissistic and political tool to promote division.
This modern propaganda bombing of bandying around “racist” or “vanilla lenses”, or whatever click bait phrase simply adds to stop mature debate. And seed division. Any egg head can see we are being played for political reasons.
Most of the mess in New Zealand’s present society are the result of poor Governance, and I’m genuinely sad that so many Maori have suffered under experimental policy implementation. It’s a tragic case of long term failure. If we resent one another thanks to race baiting from low value political interests, the chances of improving the status quo are - 1.
When the hospital surgeon recently told my father that all things being equal, they must discriminate based on ethnicity (with Maori and Pacific Islanders getting priority) it was heart breaking. Thanks for your 50 years of tax sir but your the wrong race for Government subsidised health care. That is shocking, however on defines the legislation.
But I still hope cool heads can prevail. And I still hope for a cohesive future. It is possible, however challenging!
"...When the hospital surgeon recently told my father that all things being equal, they must discriminate based on ethnicity (with Maori and Pacific Islanders getting priority) it was heart breaking. Thanks for your 50 years of tax sir but your the wrong race for Government subsidised health care. That is blatant racism...."
which spells trouble in the long run doesn't it!? I pay for health insurance so as to avoid this sort of racist discrimination but for the pakeha working class no such luxury. Such a shame this sort of thing is happening.
I think you are attributing something as being a race based focus rather than being remote community access. Having worked in a DHB I can tell you that access to health care is an international standard that NZ struggles with due to the remoteness of too many of it's communities. It is not about who lives there, but where they are. Economics plays a part as many in those communities have very limited resources. But as for so many other aspects of NZ, Maori tend to be disproportionately represented as missing out here too. From experience i can say that DHBs spend a lot of time and effort trying to ensure those areas do get coverage, but limited resources means whatever coverage for health care is achieved it tends to be sparse and sporadic. But it is not for lack of trying.
They are one and the same issue. If Maori are receiving preferential treatment as alleged then surely greater resources would be put into Maori community's. Where are the new hospitals in Opotiki or Kaitaia? These policies may be socio-economic rather than race, why would Pacifika receive preferential treatment over Pakeha?
It's these sort of lazy comments that the right use to stir up anti-Maori sentiment.
It is not lazy comments Te Kooti. I suggest your coming from a position of ignorance. Per head of capita when I was involved Maori got a lot more resources than any other group, but there was never , ever enough. In effect they got preferential treatment. But then we also know now that Health was and continues to be significantly underfunded, and the natural consequences of that is that those resources will be concentrated in the higher population centres.
And try not to be too offensive? I am not right wing at all, but try to have a pragmatic, realistic view of what is actually going on. You call it racist, but I can tell you for certain that when clinics were held in those remote towns, no prioritisation was made on any factor other than health need. I do know that there was still an issue where some with the need would not access the health care despite it being virtually on their doorstep. One justification I heard for that was that the health care professionals at the clinic had the wrong colour skin. Who was being racist then?
The lazy comment wasnt yours, nor accusing you of being right wing. You may be right, but is that because Maori are generally over-represented in poor health stats and would therefore receive more? My point is, I don't see it and would be surprised to see Maori pushed up surgery waiting lists.
A part of the problem there is lifestyle choice. Health is so often the consequences of lifestyle choices and always has been. Of my generation, we largely didn't have gyms, exercise was not well understood from the health benefits perspective, and even today I am in a very small minority at my gym. Even today people are still making very poor lifestyle choices, ignoring or ignorant of the long term consequences and cost of their hedonistic lifestyle choices. I am a regular gym attendee and i can say with absolute confidence that many young are largely making good choices around exercise. At my gym especially it seems that the majority of young people there are Maori, so I am confident that in time many of the health issues will fade away which is great. As to being pushed up surgery lists - most of what I am aware of is based on health needs, but big complicating factors are capacity and patient availability. It is always hard for health professionals when they decide on who gets the limited available slots. Some one always misses out.
All good points Murray. What I am questioning is the assertion that Pakeha are subjected to discrimination for surgery waiting lists which favour Maori. The fact that Maori receive more per head in State health care does not support this as Maori generally have poorer health and are less likely to have private health cover.
Its not lazy comments but a statement of Govt policy. I do find it interesting that even you are credulous of a health policy that racially discriminates and think that we are making this stuff up. But you need to pay attention. And its not just surgical waitlists. Drugs are now funded only for Maori and not Pakeha. Things like bowel cancer screening and covid anti-virals are offered to Maori 15 years before Pakeha are allowed them. Covid GP treatment remains free for Maori but Pakeha have to pay.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/121640802/mori-and-pasifika-giv…
https://www.waikato.ac.nz/news-opinion/media/2023/pharmac-prioritised-m…
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/02/12/covid-19-treatment-funding-cut-leave…
Bull shite te kooti. I've lived in the far north for years..
There are fantastic hospitals that give maori excellent prioritized health care in kawakawa, Kaitaia, Rawene.
The hospice, mid and far north, look after many dieing Maori thanks to many rich white man donations and health board funding
The more we prop up maori - the more they need propping up- the less they do for themselves
I came here to read all the standard comments whenever anything Maori mentioned and I was not dissapointed.
The treaty was signed and it must be honoured. Nothing else matters. No Highland clearances or any other strawmen. You will be carried kicking sceaming to its resolution whether you like it or not. All parties agree except ACT.
Would you be happy if you signed a contract to sell your house and later the purchaser said I'll take your house, but because a certain time has passed that feels too long I won't honour my side of the deal you'd be straight off the courts wouldn't you?
You’re deluded… politicians play the hand that the voters give them… Ardern pulled the wool over ning nong voters hence a majority government with strong element of radicals pushing the gravy chain that is apartheid government in favour of the poor, under privileged, colonial abused class that is Maori and Pacifica people…
‘What the deluded don’t know is this kind of governance is a one way ticket to a tin-pot, african-style nation where all animals are equal except for the pigs!
What is the Treaty ?
https://nopunchespulled.com/2023/05/01/bruce-moon/
Everyone is an immigrant in New Zealand, some came sooner, some later.
They are all just New Zealanders, regardless of race or skin colour.
All New Zealanders deserve equal treatment.
Jeez Chris. Have you been drinking the treaty Kool Aid? Or are you merely being provocative? If the latter, then I suggest your intellectual sophistry has fired its shot well wide of the thinking Kiwi. Too subtle.
Two things...
To which treaty are you referring when you talk of fealty to principles? The modern-day revision (which you have deplored in former posts) or the original of 1840?
As you have argued elsewhere, the modern-day interpretation is a highly expedient reinterpretation - effectively a complete renegotiation, in camera - serving the politics of Maori ethno-nationalism and its euphoric theologians in our universities and media (i.e. Maori did not cede sovereignty to the Crown but retain it to its fullest extent, thus owning and having ultimate authority over all things Kiwi but, for the meantime, having the generous forbearance to share that authority- conditionally - with the repulsive colonising Crown).
Second, you've played right into the hands of the ethnically prejudiced nationalists by separating Maori from pākeha points of view. It is a false, utterly crippling dichotomy. For a start, neither holds a uniform view on treaty affairs. No matter how compelling or repelling, the proposition of co-governance is worth debating as a constitutional future on its own terms. Without the distraction of reference to contested interpretations of the treaty.
Personally, I consider that the aspirations of Maori ethno-nationalists are based on the Trumpian lie of absolute Maori sovereignty. If we believe that, Trump was cheated at the 2020 election, the Jewish holocaust never happened (the Nazis were right about the Jewish conspiracy all along), and Earth was created in seven days. And flat.
That said, the peaceable future for our country lies in the contest of ideas, not cultural arm-wrestling or the muscle of brown and other numbers at the decision-making table. We must look forward, conscious of but not governed by the past. Deal to the injustices of the past which continue to disadvantage others but do not allow them poison the future. Proceed on the basis of principles which protect the virtues of human equity and democracy for tomorrow, not the corruptions of yesterday. We Kiwis all have to live here together.
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.