By Chris Trotter*
Norman Kirk's colleagues called it the “bloody red book”, and privately lamented that he referred to it constantly at Cabinet. Labour’s 1972 Manifesto was taken very seriously by “The Boss”. It contained promises which the voters expected a Labour Government to keep – and Kirk was not about to let them down.
It is a measure of how profoundly the practice of New Zealand politics has changed since the 1970s that, back then, both the public sector chiefs and the news media took party manifestos very seriously. The former detailed talented underlings to tease out the costs and consequences of the parties’ plans. The news media did its best to do acquaint the public with the same information.
Just how far party manifestos had been downgraded was demonstrated vividly by another Labour prime minister, David Lange, who frankly admitted to his party not bothering with a manifesto in 1987 – on the grounds that had his government told the voters what it was planning to do they would have voted it out of office!
What passed for manifestos in the aftermath of the radical economic changes of the 1980s and 90s were glossy documents containing few words and many pictures. Coherent arguments were replaced by bullet-pointed sentences inspired by the reactions of focus-groups. From being statements of party principle and purpose, manifestos simply told voters what they wanted to hear – as interpreted by the polling agencies hired to translate the vox populi.
Even then, there was no guarantee that these pre-tested promises would be kept. The extent to which cynicism had come to guide the behaviour of New Zealand politicians was famously revealed by the Labour Cabinet Minister Steve Maharey, who informed the House of Representatives that an unfulfilled party promise was: “Just one of those things you say when you’re in Opposition, and then forget about when you’re in Government.”
The exception to this downgrading of the election manifesto was the small, ideologically-driven party determined to present its transformational programme to the electorate in considerable detail. Perhaps the most famous of these was the manifesto prepared by the Values Party for the 1975 general election. Across 91 pages, its idealistic authors described the sort of nation the Values Party believed New Zealand could/should become. Retailing for $1.65 (roughly $20.00 in today’s money) “Beyond Tomorrow” became a best seller.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the impressive precedent set by their Values predecessors served as an inspiration to the Greens who remembered it. So much so that, even today, the Green Party makes an effort to present its ideas in some detail to the public. This year’s effort, “The Time Is Now”, at 48 A4 pages, may not be as inspiring as “Beyond Tomorrow”, but the Greens have, at least, made an effort.
No matter how odious comparisons are said to be, it is instructive to compare the opening lines of “The Time Is Now” with those of “Beyond Tomorrow”. The latter begins with a quote from Gandhi: “The earth has enough for everyman’s need, but not enough for everyman’s greed.” The opening line of “The Time Is Now” reads: “Our vision is a climate-friendly Aotearoa that honours Te Tiriti and meets the needs of everyone within the boundaries of the planet, so that we and the rest of nature can thrive.” The remaining 47 pages are intended to translate that “vision” into a consistent policy platform.
Introducing the Greens’ manifesto to the party’s AGM on Sunday (9/7/23) Co-Leader Marama Davidson began by describing what she believes to be the essence of Greenness:
“As Greens we have always found [our] humanity in being part of a collective.”
Not the best start in a nation whose majority culture is firmly founded upon the principle that the human individual is supreme, and whose touchstone novel is entitled “Man Alone”. Being of Ngāti Porou, Te Rarawa, and Ngāpuhi descent, it is entirely reasonable for Davidson to espouse the values of te Ao Māori, but for a party whose voter base is overwhelmingly well-educated, middle-class and Pakeha, extolling collective values may not be the most effective opening gambit – psycho-socially speaking.
Never mind. Let us proceed on the assumption that the Green Party’s members and voters are all staunch collectivists. Certainly, that would need to be the case if their commitment to an Aotearoa which honours te Tiriti is genuine. Especially when honouring te Tiriti involves facilitating “the return of whenua that was wrongfully alienated from tangata whenua, including through exploring a right of first refusal process that enables the return of private land to iwi, hapū and whānau at point of sale”.
To announce that your party is even “exploring” the idea of bestowing upon Māori the “right of first refusal” on privately-owned land offered for sale will certainly test the relative strengths of collectivism and individualism in New Zealand!
There was a very good reason why the Waitangi Tribunal was forbidden from considering privately-owned land, a reason which is, almost certainly, as valid today as it was forty years ago. Restoring the status-quo-ante that prevailed prior to the enforced alienation of Māori land is an invitation to civil war. One suspects that the Greens’ manifesto promise to “Implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Aotearoa”, would amount to the same thing.
Not to worry, just a few pages on, under the heading of “Workforce”, the Greens’ manifesto promises to: “Legislate for a right to solidarity strikes and political strikes.”
One of the most effective political strikes on record is the general strike of Protestant workers organised by the Ulster Workers Council, which took place in Northern Ireland between 15-28 May 1974. The strikers successfully destroyed the Sunningdale Agreement establishing a power-sharing arrangement between the Protestant and Catholic communities under the auspices of the governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The strike forced the UK Government to restore direct rule from London.
This sort of political strike is, patently, not the sort of political strike the Greens were thinking of when they confirmed that particular element of their Workforce policy. But they should be under no illusion that it is but one of the many radical responses to which the Pakeha majority would likely have resort if UNDRIP was imposed from above by a Green Government.
Many readers will undoubtedly object that the Greens are fully aware that they will be in no position to enforce the policies contained in their manifesto, and that its content is purely aspirational. But, if that is the case, then they are merely children playing at the game of politics, and should not be treated as serious contenders for office.
A political party offering a manifesto to the public, is expected to have thoroughly debated its contents and satisfied itself that the measures proposed are both desirable and workable. And, further, that its MPs are committed, 100 percent, to implementing its promises. “Given the power, this is what we’ll do.” That is the pledge they are making. If the only purpose of publishing a manifesto is to make themselves feel better, then the Greens should abjure participation in any government.
Norman Kirk was very likely the last New Zealand prime minister to take his party’s manifesto promises seriously. What New Zealanders read in the “bloody red book”, was what New Zealanders got from “Big Norm” – until the pressures of giving it to them killed him.
If the “bloody green book” is not a document to be taken seriously, then neither is the party that wrote 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.
82 Comments
Frightening from a historical perspective. consider all "Collective" ideologies from history and it becomes very easy to see that the collective resources are essentially reserved and controlled by a political elite, and severely rationed to the rest. This is nothing more than pandering to Maori 'Have-Nots'. Those who thought they would get rich from treaty settlements, but didn't. The worrying fact is that there will be many who will be thoroughly sucked in by this, and empowered by the approach. I see a potential for a repeat of Zimbabwe in this.
A dangerous item in the Greens manifesto is to "Ensure all individuals who whakapapa Māori are eligible for Aotearoa citizenship, regardless of country of residence or birth".
This introduces a clear division between people living (and perhaps born) outside New Zealand who can claim some Māori ancestry and thus would be able to claim New Zealand citizenship, and others who have New Zealand non-Māori ancestry, who might not.
The policy states no generational limit, so a person born outside New Zealand of parents and ancestors also born outside New Zealand would be able to claim citizenship on the basis of a single Māori great-great-great-great-grandparent.
Inevitably, if this policy were to become law, the next step would be to grant all these expatriate citizens the right to vote, potentially transferring the power to elect governments to 'citizens' living outside New Zealand and with no connection to it other than remote claims to 'whakapapa Māori'.
Here’s where the Greens are really dangerous.
Firstly they combine with Labour to entrench Three Waters clandestinely at the eleventh hour and in so doing wilfully subvert acknowledged parliamentary protocol. Obviously within that attempt was a worthy quid pro quo for their benefit from a certain faction in the Labour government.
Secondly they propose to empower the IRD to enquire into, record , monitor and audit the legitimately owned assets of NZ citizens in order to prosecute a wealth tax. The Magna Carta of 1215 is a cornerstone of our law for good reason preventing intervention by the Crown for such purpose.
This can only suggest the Greens have neither respect nor knowledge of the foundations of our society and as such are motivated by an agenda to overturn statutes or anything else to arrive at implementation of policy.
Nice try. But it's not as if Moses brought Magna Carta down from Mount Sinai carved in stone.
New Zealand's tax system was largely based on wealth and property till 1930, when income tax became general. Income tax reached its peak during World War II with a top rate of 90%, which would make one's eyes water. But wealth taxes continued: land tax abolished in 1992, death duties in 1993, and gift tax in 2011. So perhaps the Greens' tax aspirations simply lead general taxation back in the direction of the pre-income-tax era.
You miss the point. Taxable criteria and collection is altogether another thing. Compiling a doomsday book, a ledger of citizens private ownership has never existed here. The IRD has been correctly and understandably refrained from ‘fishing expeditions.” But while about your history have a look at Nazi German p1938 Decree reporting of Jewish-owned property which undoubtedly would align with the mechanics of that particular persuasion.
The Greens are a bunch of very dangerous lunatics utterly blinded by their extreme ideology and ultimately hostile to the fundamental values of liberal democracy. Their talk of "humanity being part of a collective" does have a Stalinist flavour, and it sounds like something coming out of a North Korea political manifesto, a Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety's statement, or even out of the Star Trek's Borg.
They survive only by dint of the international Green political movement that is a forceful presence in such as Germany.For instance our elderly neighbours vote for them willy nilly and have told us that they are voting for Green Peace. More might vote that way too if that was the Greens true base here. But it’s not. It’s been high jacked by career politicians with little calibre, and scarce chance to exist in a main party, pursuing ideological clap trap aimed at disincentivising success and penalising those that are successful. An American judge I once chatted to at an airport defined socialism as taking money from him that he had earned, paid tax on and saved and giving it to someone who had done none of those things. Simplistically harsh I thought at the time, but with NZ’s Greens it’s right on the mark.
I got a German Engineer friend who lives here and she says the Green party here is nowhere near what the Green party stands for or represents in Germany. Example she told me the Green party in Germany looks at a project in Germany if in the long term it's going to cut out creation of CO2 or help the environment like say a new motorway/infrastructure project which helps people move and cuts down on vehicles usage etc. But is going to create CO2 by building it so be it. The long term is were their focus is. The Greens of NZ don't want nothing to happen they want you and I to just sit there and eat beans while they fly around the world telling everyone how well they have done. Absolute plonkers and career/good for nothing politicians
I think it is a case of the more desperate that they get, the more stupid their announcements. Maori stuff has had it's highwater mark. The backlash is beginning and unfortunately, it will hit hard-working normal Maori that have nothing to do with this nonsense as well.
This. People forget that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (probably because we no longer teach actual Science) but the more extreme Left or Right people go, the more extreme the antagonism, resentment and hatred that is created in opposition. Until we get to the point where co-existence is no longer possible.
The party has been hijacked. The priority of environmental issues has been overwhelmed by a socialist agenda, extremely left at that. Orwell here is appropriate, something like - it’s not so much that Socialists love the poor, it’s their hatred of the rich that drives them.
National are so out of touch that the Greens get the air time.
Young people with zero chance of owning a home must look at National and think "What the f**k?". They just want change an know they wont get that with National.
What would you do if you were 25 years old with $10k in the bank?
Buy a one-way ticket to Aussie or Europe and start afresh. Those countries are in no way perfect, but their economic systems aren't as small and unsophisticated as ours for the average worker to be impacted by every policy move coming out of the central bureaucracy.
No shortage of opportunities for both career advancement and affordable living for those willing to venture outside the popular OE destinations (London, Paris, Sydney, etc.).
You don’t need to scratch the skin too deep to get a fix on the personality beneath. Last election, the voting boxes not even stashed away, the female co-leader blurted out that she expected to be in cabinet. Never mind that the electorate had arranged the fact that Labour didn’t even need them to form a government.Sums up the priorities, naked ambition for oneself doesn’t it.
Yes, if you are an Ilam (which sadly I am not any more) then it would be in your best interests to vote for Raf Manji even if it is just to afford another potential coalition partner that is a bit - actually a lot - more sensible and serious.
I've written here before that I disagree with some of TOP's proposed tax changes but I'd still give Raf my electorate vote if I could.
I don't see any chance of TOP getting above 5% in party vote, in fact it seems they have given up on it too, but Ilam could be in play.
It would give National a potential 3rd coalition partner as well ... I don't see how having another party that could possibly work with both National or Labour could be a bad thing (considering that Greens & TPM will only ever work with Labour and Act will only ever work with National)
TOP will fit with any party that will consider supporting and implementing their policies.
The Teal Card could be picked up by left or right, with some tweaks easily enough.
The LVT is inherently more of a left-wing policy simply by dint of the right-wing in this country only ever considering tax cuts when it comes to taxation and never tax increases, especially not an asset tax.
I thought when Jeanette Fitzsimmons won Coromandel and carried the Greens into parliament that this was a good omen for MMP bringing diversification and accountability to NZ’s political arena. It was exactly why I voted for MMP, arising from the shenanigans of Muldoon’s political death throes. Teal wasn’t a term in vogue then but, as it is applied now, it is how I perhaps naively thought how valuably a well structured, balanced and independent party of this direction would play out. Not so though.
One could look at it in this way:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander
As Queen Victoria was given first right of refusal in Article 2 of the Treaty.
But, yeah, there's also the argument that, that was then and this is now.
"But, yeah, there's also the argument that, that was then and this is now."
This to me is the crux of the situation.
The Treaty (I use English because it was of English concept and design) has never been amended, updated, or otherwise changed since writing, and was never meant to act as a Constitution (otherwise it would have been titled as such.)
We fail to agree on what the Treaty meant at the time it was signed. Yet here we are 150 years later trying to prescribe meaning and context across every facet of modern life, using a scrap of paper with a mere three articles that wasn't even ratified by most of the Iwi/Hapu/Rohe present in NZ at the time (incuding my own).
Society, Culture, and beliefs all change over time. In order to progress as a Nation we need to stop treating the Treaty with something akin to a religous fervour, and acknolwedge that it simply isn't fit for purpose.
Careful with that blasphemous talk. You will be prosecuted and hung by the court of MSM. Seriously, I fail to see how our legal system has derived "principals" and partnership from this document. The major issue being that we "the people" have never had an opportunity to define what these should be in a modern multicultural and democratic society. Hence vote ACT for an open discussion for the path forward.
Yes, and Key's government tried to embark on constitutional reform which has since gone nowhere. Plenty of reports/documents - no progress. Hence, the Courts fill in the blanks;
I haven't read the manifesto , but i would say this is not meant to apply to all property sales.
I would think they are meaning land , that was once Maori owned, and has some relevance to Maori. Urapas , pa sites etc.
And it is to purchase, not confiscate.
Unfortunately, been a small party with limited resources, some less than clear / desirable stuff will slip through. I remember Paul Holmes ambushing Jeanette Fitzsimons on the parties witchcraft policy. she clearly had no idea it existed.
I do think they have gone overboard in this regard , and should leave it to TPM. but again , i have not been able to read the manifesto.
Ok , found it and here is the actual wording.
"Facilitate the return of whenua that was wrongfully alienated from tangata whenua, including through exploring a right of first refusal process that enables the return of private land to iwi, hapū and whānau at point of sale.
"wrongfully alienated" , rather than all land per se.
i would also note it is one paragraph on page 37 of a 42 page document.Which starts with children and climate change. Around 15 of the 42 headings are environment related.
With respect to your second paragraph, is there an existing list of land that fits these criteria?
What I suspect concerns many (myself included) is the thought that your property is suddenly declared as being a site of cultural/historical significance, but you had no idea at the time when you purchased the property.
No. And there will be no unanimous agreement either. I mean this is ultimately the issue with a tribal, migratory society clashing with a 'settled' one. Land claims and ownership are murky.
Having been involved in the settling of these land claims in the past, the biggest issue to me with this particular aspect is that there is a very large gulf between what the Crown historian usually comes to the table with as what the alienated pieces of land are, and what the tribe lodging the claim does.
Like I'm talking 98% difference in land area. It's gonna be so murky. Of course the individual doesn't have the resources the crown does, so when they attempt to dispute this and sell on the open market, they won't be able to afford the several hundred thousand of legal fees to successfully combat it. And the iwi will have economies of scale in this regard, able to make arguments and produce economic and historical evidence applied over a whole area rather than just the individual property.
Finally 'wrongfully alienated' is so ambiguous. See my first point. What would be considered as a fair and reasonable arms length transaction to an outside observer could be considered by the tribal descendants as wrongful alienation with the full benefit of hindsight. This is in fact one of the primary reasons for the treaty, as the same piece of land often got sold multiple times.
Find a policeman to enforce that law. The white majority shouldn't be subject to these humiliation.
I already despise this state as a total oppressor, which does very little for ordinary people relative to its immense cost in tax and ideological adherence demands. The legitimacy of the state and its supportive appendages (legacy media, NGOs, thinktanks, universities etc) is increasingly worn thin. I suspect a very large population within this country are increasingly enraged at these entitled parasites.
We are never asked about these radical agendas, they are always imposed on us secretly and quietly. Whether it is the mass censorship, the radical racial agenda, the growth of the police state beneath the current Left government harassing all sorts of political enemies of the regime. We deserve better.
Isn't that most 16yr olds totally against what their parents stand for but can't see pass next week. At 18 I voted for legalize weed party. Never mind apart from that they didn't have a clue about anything else but cause my parents were stoic run of the mill. So yeah you can see why these f...wits want the age lowered
But, think about that - had we legalized that herb way back then how much money and time our police/justice system would have saved in being able to forget about prosecuting people over a plant. And just think how much less revenue the dealers selling it on the black market would have been made - and how many people's lives wouldn't have been impacted for life by a prison record for possession, sale or growing a weed?
My opinion is, Colin, you were spot on right in your younger days. Oddly enough, I find younger people much more practical than many adults in terms of political issues/opinions, as they haven't yet learned to 'follow' a single ideology.
Kate you should try to apply your intellect to that direction. Consider the amount of money saved if cannabis had been legal, and the quality of our Governments, what and where do you think the politicians would have redirected those funds to, based on their actual actions, not some fanciful Utopian possibility? I suggested they'd have found another place to waste them.
Plus consider now that cannabis has been legal for quite some time now in places like the US and the science has been emerging for a while now as to just how harmful it is. Do you still think it should be legalised?
Lawyers plead, and judges usually agree, that typical adolescents, sixteen year olds or so, have arguable means of defence due to cognitive immaturity and so on. On that basis would suggest that those that propose they are qualified to vote have even more cognitive immaturity.
The Greens are hamstrung by the necessity of having to dream up ludicrous outrageous and ridiculous policies pies in the sky just to be different.
Attention seekers
Interesting too James Cameron of Titanic (Olympic) notoriety
Made a $50,000 donation to the Greens coffers
What's His game?
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.