![trottas1.jpg](/sites/default/files/2023-11/trottas1.jpg)
By Chris Trotter*
To be political in the fourth quarter of 2023 is not easy.
Yes, New Zealand has just passed through a general election, but the outcome of that contest was signalled well in advance by the polls. That the government lost came as no surprise, even if the vehemence of the electorate’s judgement came as a shock to many of the defeated party’s supporters. But, it wasn’t Labour’s thrashing, and the victory of the Right, that made politics so hard. The explanation for the souring of political discourse here, and around the world, may be traced to Southern Israel, the dreadful events of 7 October, and the furious reaction of the Israeli state.
These events have hacked a bloody line through religious faiths, political movements, parties, families and friendships. Where people stand in relation to that dividing line is determined by many factors. Their understanding of history. Their perception of what politics should, and should not, permit. The reach of their hate. The strength of their love. The persuasiveness of their fear.
Significantly, the line runs horizontally, not vertically. Where one stands on the Israel-Hamas War is not a straightforward matter of Left versus Right. On both sides of the classical divide, friends and comrades draw away from each other: blue and white above the line; red, white, green and black below.
Discussing the times and the morals with an old comrade, just a few days ago, we reflected on the fast decreasing utility of the terms “Right” and “Left”. He recalled the ease with which, as much younger men, we were able to sort the issues of the day into neat ideological piles; separate the protagonists from the antagonists; and know a kind of ontological peace. Now, he told me, the only political idea with which he still identifies unequivocally is Democracy. In the past, he proudly proclaimed himself a socialist. Today, he would own to being a “radical democrat” – nothing more.
And now, as if the malevolent spirit of the times has not destabilised our world enough, New Zealanders’ adherence to the values and processes of democracy is being put to the test. Once again, the dividing line is horizontal, not vertical, with the “decolonising” project of Māori nationalism sundering the supporters of democracy from the partisans of ethnic exceptionalism. Like Palestine, the meaning, purpose, and future of Te Tiriti O Waitangi has become an issue over which an amiable ‘agreement to differ’ is no longer possible.
The day that was always going to dawn has arrived. The day when the unmandated revision of the meaning, purpose and scope of the Treaty of Waitangi runs into the numerical majority of New Zealanders who, according to the pollsters, have run out of patience with the “Treatyists” insistence that ‘Non-Māori’ have an open-ended obligation to acknowledge and fulfil what are now their unabashedly revolutionary constitutional claims. This loss of patience has taken the form of the Act Party’s democratic counter-revision of the Treaty: a political formula it seeks to ratify with a referendum involving – and binding – the whole adult population of New Zealand.
The political leadership of Maoridom, and their Pakeha supporters, have been quick to declare their opposition to any resolution of Treaty differences by way of counting votes. The former Minister of Māori Affairs, Willie Jackson, has warned that elements within the Māori world are willing to “make war” on any attempt to re-write the Treaty’s meaning. (That the Waitangi Tribunal and the Judiciary have been doing exactly that for the best part of 50 years appears to have slipped the former minister’s memory.)
Considerably less ferociously, the distinguished Treaty historian, Dame Anne Salmond, has also taken up an anti-referendum position. Writing for the Newsroom site, she argues that “the idea of putting the ‘principles of the Treaty’ to a popular vote is unjust and unwise, and should not be entertained by any responsible government ….. a referendum on ‘the principles of the Treaty,’ given its populist appeal to the majority and its inflammatory potential, is not the right (tika) way to conduct this kind of discussion. It would be unjust and divisive, inciting extreme views in all directions and fostering misinformation, anger and ill-will.”
The central difficulty with Dame Anne’s position is that it fails to acknowledge that the manner in which the (re)interpretation of the Treaty has been carried out since the passage of the Waitangi Tribunal legislation in 1975 has not been all that “tika” either. The re-conceptualisation of New Zealand’s democratic system of government was undertaken by institutions and individuals not subject to the judgement of the citizenry. Attempting to re-construct the nation’s constitutional edifice without reference to those obliged to live within it has always been a very risky strategy.
Dame Anne is not alone in her view that holding a referendum on the Treaty would not be wise. Rather than leave the decision to the electors, the former National Party Defence Minister, and present former Law Commission member, Dr Wayne Mapp, argues for a Royal Commission of Inquiry “charged with coming up with an acceptable set of ‘Principles of the Treaty’, that could form the basis of legislative definition of the principles. The term itself is a creature of statute but it has never been statutorily defined. So over the last 36 years the Courts have fulfilled that role, supplemented by the bureaucracy.”
Presumably, Dr Mapp is channelling the wisdom of King Solomon, since nothing less would be required to select a panel of Royal Commissioners acceptable to all the parties involved in the Treaty Debate. Any line-up receiving the thumbs-up from Iwi leaders, Te Pati Māori and Willie Jackson would, almost certainly, get the thumbs-down from David Seymour and Winston Peters. Which is, precisely, why a referendum is necessary.
Not that Dr Mapp is convinced. “The reason why I oppose a referendum is that it will be an explicit removal of minority rights. Māori are a minority, mostly contained in the 18%. They will not agree to an ACT imposed definition of the principles of the treaty. I am well connected to Māori views on this matter, primarily through my wife [Denese Henare]. I know the level of response and division that such a referendum will cause.”
Once again, the apparent absence of concern at what manner of response and division might be aroused when those Mapp describes as “conservative senior politicians” are successful in persuading Christopher Luxon to rule out a referendum. Clearly, the levying of war against the Crown is something only Māori have the wit to threaten.
And, therein, lies the conundrum Luxon will have to face. If he bows to Māori threats to “make war” on his coalition government by scotching Act’s referendum proposal, then what’s next? What does he suppose will be the lesson drawn by those Māori determined to persist with co-governance, with Three Waters, with the Māori Health Authority?
“The last thing National needs over the next 3 years is an intemperate ‘debate’ over the principles of the Treaty.” Opines Dr Mapp. “There is a smarter approach to this issue.” So the Crown has insisted, ever since the 1980s, when it became frightened of what Māori might do if it dared to say “No”. But, it was those “smarter” approaches, driven by fear, that prompted the decisions that have led us, concession by concession, one judgement inspiring and empowering the next, to this present position. Thus we find ourselves located, dangerously, between a rock and a hard place.
But, being political has never been easy – not even when one takes the easy way out. The moment always arrives when a choice has to be made. Democracy? Or Ethnic Exceptionalism? And what determines the choice? That, too, does not change:
Our understanding of history. Our perception of what politics should, and should not, permit. The reach of our hate. The strength of our love. The persuasiveness of our fear.
*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.
67 Comments
CT I suspect is always considerate of the language he chooses to use, so he got my attention when he referred to an old colleague as a "comrade", a term right out of the Leninist/Stalinist playbook. But then that colleague informs him that the only political ideal he sticks with today is Democracy. So as age and hopefully a little wisdom embeds, the old radicals realise that distinctive political ideologies of the left and right are all flawed.
But then CT goes into the talk about the Treaty, but ignores as do most, what I believe are the biggest failings and the root of today's problems. But I suggest he knows this as the paragraph I discuss above talks about.
'Democracy' is primarily about all of the population being able to participate. To have a decent standard of living, and to have surplus funds to feed into a functioning economy. But any view of the financial and economic policies that come out of any Government in this country (but it is not unique to NZ) seems ultimately aimed at either driving down living standards, or keeping them down, to the benefit of the wealthy and big multinational corporations. Superficially of course the pollies are great at selling their respective wheelbarrows of manure to the public, and Government organisations are essentially crap at meeting expectations (The Herald is running an article on the failings of the Commerce Commission) all with no consequence to the individuals making those decisions.
The ultimate breach of the Treaty of course is having the colonial governments steal their land from Maori, that every successive Government since has been determined to keep them and most other working classes poor and dependent through lousy economic policies and management. But then no one acknowledges that Tino Rangatiratanga starts at the individual and requires at least the ability to earn a decent living, so that they can afford to make independent choices about their own lives.
Funnily enough, there are 170,000 Maori living in Australia (20% of the total Maori population), most of them without access to welfare. Yet there they are, clearly successful and thriving in a white man's land. How is it that the "effects of colonisation" only impact those still living in NZ and not those Maori living in Australia, the UK, USA, or Singapore (as many of my Maori friends are)?
Thomas Sowell speaks to this, not only through his professional ability but also from personal experience.
He recounts that he achieved his standing prior and without the perceived help of affirmative action, so when he walked into a classroom as a professor, he was shown no bias as everyone knew that for him to achieve what he did, in spite of the system at the time, then it was down to his ability, ie he had not been given any 'special privilege.'
Yet other fully capable black professors who had started their studies prior to affirmative action and graduated after the introduction received criticism that they were only there, not because of their ability, but because of the lower of standards for affirmative action entry.
Maori I have spoken to who have moved to Australia have mentioned being free to stand on their own two feet, succeeding by their merits, without the negative connotations that positive discrimination saddles you with if you do well in NZ.
Plus of course, as a group almost all immigrant classes do better than the natural-born citizens of a country, and also given equal effort, anyone, both immigrants and those born in the country will do better in Australia than NZ.
The word democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", meaning people, and "kratos" meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as "power of the people": a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.
It would appear that it has been applied in various Empires since as more the right to choose one's ruler. Government's have abused their mandate and the will of the people has been so divided that it has ultimately become the will of the $.
Tino Rangatiratanga, self determination requires cultural/societal/community beliefs that empower and guide the individual, that recognises the inherent worth of the person rather than their value to the market, as an object or resource to be exploited. It requires the nourishment and nurturement of their individuated spirit, the encouragement of self expression, lessons in self awareness, self control and self discipline, not in discipline and control by others or over others. It's about one learning power in themselves and how to use it appropriately for the benefit of others.
Know thyself. Love thy neighbour as thyself. I am you, you are me. All else flows from there.
'Tino Rangatiratanga, self determination requires cultural/societal/community beliefs that empower and guide the individual, that recognises the inherent worth of the person rather than their value to the market, as an object or resource to be exploited. It requires the nourishment and nurturement of their individuated spirit, the encouragement of self expression, lessons in self awareness, self control and self discipline, not in discipline and control by others or over others. It's about one learning power in themselves and how to use it appropriately for the benefit of others.'
Bollocks. Tino rangatiratanga means rule by rangatira. That's all.
Chris Trotter takes refuge in 'democracy' against interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi that the non-Māori majority are certain to reject were a referendum to be held.
The problem with 'democracy' is that it takes only 51 percent to oppress the rest: potentially majoritarian tyranny. The problem with 'treatyism', on the other hand, is the assumption of privilege by a hereditary group, or caste, over the rest of society.
Trotter seems to forget that socialism implies striving for economic justice for all, a goal that surely trumps both democracy and treatyism.
The problem with 'democracy' is that it takes only 51 percent to oppress the rest
51% doesn't decree that the other 49% are 'oppressed', I find this a very reactive view. The reality being the 49% aren't entirely happy then move on and adapt. Humans have been working together in groups for thousands of years to problem solve and coordinate decisions in this way.
I would suggest that if we are going down the path of implementing an apartheid system, where one race is given superior rights over other races in all aspects of life, from controlling public assets to accessing the health system, then the majority population should have a say in whether they are willing to accept that system being imposed on them. Otherwise NZ simply becomes another South Africa, in a spiraling descent into third world status as those affected flee the country, skilled immigration dries up, the worker base declines, while those on welfare make up an ever greater proportion of the population, which results in even more people fleeing the high tax rates required to support everything
Chris Trotter fails to scope wide enough.
Our social narrative is in trouble; has been found wanting. It asserted you could have unlimited 'economic' growth forever, on this finite planet. That gave us, in the first world, an excuse to steal; we told ourselves that others had the same chances, and it was their fault if....
Meanwhile, we repressed them, via wars, facilitated coups, the IMF, the World Bank - and succumbed to our own propaganda. That goes for 'left' and 'right', which doesn't traverse adequately, but which temporarily fitted our chosen narrative.
Now, the narrative is proving false for a growing cohort - it's gotten up as far as the first-world middle-class, and hollowed it out. Thus we have no 'centre', thus we have polarization. But recent European vs Maori is also far too small in scope; we are all the result of an unbroken 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 sequence, overtaking-wise. The first pre-reproduction '0', and it's sequence closed; you aren't here. Then there's us vis-a-vis future generations; an orders-of-magnitude bigger transgression. I don't think Trotter gets that, as most people don't.
It's not that what you say is wrong PDK, but it isn't helpful in the context CT is addressing.
Given, as you remind us, there is no long-term sustainable solution that will see mankind live in 'harmony' with the natural world, only the time it will take until we destroy everything (getting destroyed by natural events we have no effect on, or discovery of the true universal laws aside), then CT rightly concentrates on the problem at hand.
Now we get to the nub of it:
Racial dissonance is essentially resource-competition by tribe.
But by concentrating on just one competition event, we can virtue-signal (from the winner's stance) or compete for more from the loser's).
Seems a bit short-sighted, all round...
Not really, if you or your family were put into immediate danger (real or imagined) then your thoughts would turn to what you need to do NOW to survive. Not some future thought about what the cost of your actions is costing the future you or the planet at some future date.
It's just the narrative of what is real or imagined has been hijacked by ideologues, bad-faith actors, and useful idiots on both sides.
Democracy historically has always had a physical conflict on a somewhat regular basis to reintegrate feelings of loss and hardship and remind the human population of what is really important in life. Recovery from conflict usually comes with a time of peace where society rebuilds, people are more tolerant of others, and hence work together more cohesively to develop and innovate in order to help benefit others around them. What we see today is the rise of capitalism and mass consumerism over the last 80years coupled with relatively low conflict on a global scale unlike the periods before. The outcome is generations forgetting this feeling of loss, having less compassion and empathy (also bolstered by social media consumption), more social fragmentation and thu less community driven mindsets, replaced by selfish decisions and ideals.
That's an entirely valid argument, as long as the bigger picture is held; otherwise you lack context.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/10/context-is-king/
I argue that this doesn't. It's like arguing about the disenfranchisement of previous-trip Steerage passengers, by the previous-trip crew, while the ship sinks. Good virtue-signalling, but a waste of time considering how local we are going to end up, and how soon.
Go well - oh, and I'm strictly not for prophet...
The topic is how the treaty is interpreted, and whether this should be done via the courts (as it has been) or via parliament setting a law. This is a document signed in 1840, a time when people travelled in sail boats. How has your context added to the discussion?
Good question.
I'd argue it has. I think we're going back to - and past, for resource-depletion reasons - that time. We are almost certain to not be able to maintain the complexity that is Wellington (entirely parasitic, in energy/resource terms) beyond fossil energy input. That includes laws, penalties, policing. I think we will become very, very local, quite quickly. There are lessons to learn from indigenous populations, vis-a-vis living sustainably (the Europe the Europeans left was already 'full', as per the poem inside the Statue of Liberty) but not as many as the wide-eyed woke brigade (Labour and Green rumps) fondly imagine.
Even if you mean that we were already at an unsustainably high population in 1840 (which I think is the root of what you are saying), I am unsure how that prohibits at least the same level of governance that was put in place in 1840, especially since the Queen was on the other side of the planet.
Good. Lets think on. The question is a Systems one; of surplus energy, of maintainable complexity, of resource availability. There was no surplus energy until we went agrarian, so no supported elite (either by cohort, or race/tribe). That gave us the ability to store (surplus) energy as grain. Elites emerged; those who controlled the stocks of grain. That's traceable all the way down to that Queen; and things like Royal Estate (real estate).
But there was a full planet (except for the ex-Fertile Crescent, turned to salt by human grain-production, and a somewhat de-stocked Europe) in 1840. There is a half-depleted planet now, and almost all the infrastructure was built around the availability of fossil energy. So two things - on per-head basis, we can't go back to 1840 anyway; there are 8x as many heads present. And even if there were only1 billion of us this instant, we fact a depleted, degraded, sink-full world.
The plus is that there is a lot of material extracted and processed, which we can re-purpose. The minus side is that the ecological parameters are closing in; they had much more room to manoeuvre, back then. We have kicked the rungs out as we've climbed - both the descendent cultures of those agreeing to whatever they agreed to back then - Maori have cars and computers and smart phones and big screen TVs too. But none of this works so good ex fossil-energy availability. Not even the taken-for-granted grid... The system is going to collapse too fast to re-invent cheques, paper-systems, assuage debt, track owings. FOB goes out the window; we're down to eyeball trust. And that means local. I don't think there will be the surplus energy to maintain Queen-sized (national) constructs. Overshoot usually oscillates BELOW the maintainable level, several times on the way to equilibrium.
Thank you for not denigrating...
Reality is there are no real Māori left and the sooner we all become "One" the better. Every NZ citizen has the same rights and is treated equally, its the only way forward, its impossible to have separate systems. A referendum needs to be held on the treaty and it needs an end date, probably will not happen because a small minority who think we are still living 150 years ago are not going to like the outcome.
That is an interesting question. Legally, what would stop a recent immigrant from Europe claiming to be māori? Is there some sort of test/criteria?
Willie Jackson appeared on TV One’s programme “THE DNA DETECTIVES” back in 2015. When his markers came back, it showed Willie was….
18% English
34% Chinese
25% Ashkenazi Jew
0.4% African
20% Polynesian
2% Spanish
This is the multi-millionaire who identifies as an oppressed Maori & promotes the Thugs Veto.
The DNA Detectives S01 - Ep04 Willie Jackson and Shavaughn Ruakere HD Watch - video Dailymotion
(acknowledgement "MaggiePie", Kiwiblog)
A full blooded Maori would generally come up as 100 percent Polynesian which in turn is generally one third Papuan/Melanesian, two thirds South East Asian.
So the 20 per cent Polynesian could be all Maori or mostly Maori and some other Polynesian race if for example Willie Jackson has an ancestor that is part Chinese part Polynesian.
I have tiny traces of Melano-Polynesian in my dna that is too small to come up on 23andme or ancestry.com. This dna is possibly associated with an American gold miner who came out to NZ in the 1860's and who's ancestors were sailors and sea captains that had been voyaging between Connecticut and the Pacific for 200 years before that.
In NZ many people would be quite surprised if they were to find out how widely their ancestors travelled and how varied the connections made were before their immediate ancestors ended up in NZ.
In 23andme there is a category 'French and German' which includes Dutch. Basically they can't tell the difference between the nations because the nations aren't differentiated by race. France for example has Mediterranean influences in the south, Germanic races in the east and Celtic people in the west.
If you have a Hawaiian person's relative list at gedmatch.com New Zealand Maoris will come quite high on that list along with Tahitians, because they are more closely related to each other than to other Polynesians. Samoans and Tongans will be further down the list.
If you are someone like me who would like to know exactly who my long ago Polynesian ancestors were it's difficult. I will link with Hawaiian Maori's before I link with New Zealand Maoris. If I do link with New Zealand Maori's at Melanesian or South East Asia areas it is often because they have an American Whaler as an ancestor. I think some of the Yankee whalers and sailors probably had Hawaiian Maori dna.
If you could get a unique New Zealand Maori genetic signature it would be because the Polynesian had Anglo-Celtic dna added to it, rather than Tahitian Maori which is more likely to have French dna or Rapanui Maori dna which is more likely to have added Spanish dna.
https://www.yourgenome.org/stories/evolution-of-modern-humans/#:~:text=….
Our ancestry is ultimately African? Of course none of it takes into account Gondwana, Pangea and whom may or may not have been around in those times.
And ultimately the labeling of "races" is merely a division tactic, keeping us separated from being one peoples.
Reminiscent of the debate some time ago on TV in which Sir Bob Jones participated including not Willie but one of his older relatives who proclaimed all non Maori should be made to pack up and go back to where they came from. Sir Bob’s response something like - i would put you at about 20% Maori so which parts of you are you going to send away?
I agree that there are real problems when important constitutional issues are being decided by an insular cabal of specialist lawyers and public servants, who have erected a set of precedents and expectations that may not be aligned with the broader public. It's a legitimacy issue.
But... a big but... the process of increasing Treaty recognition has taken decades of slow, painful compromise. Undoing that would be genuinely radical (as opposed to conservative) and would create a level of political chaos that I don't think a responsible leader would contemplate. There's a temptation to 'rip off the band-aid' sometimes in politics, optimistically hoping that whatever comes next won't be worse, but I think that is very ill-advised in this case.
The Treaty says we all have the same rights, responsibilities and protections. It’s time we acknowledged that. One person, one vote - we are all equal citizens. Shouldn’t be difficult to see that those with this perspective are on the right side of history. If interpreted correctly and as originally intended, the Treaty is the worst enemy of the race separatists.
Yet another excellent article, Chris.
“The reason why I oppose a referendum is that it will be an explicit removal of minority rights. Māori are a minority, mostly contained in the 18% ...
About 4-5% of the NZ population identify as LGBT. Yet today support for same-sex marriage exceeds 75%, if there was a referendum to test support it would easily pass.
A referendum, or more generally democracy, isn't automatically anti-minority.
I know white people who think that Maori should be preferenced to make up for historical wrongs. White Guilt is a real thing. There would be many that would vote in favour of it - just look at the 18% of the country that voted for the Greens for starters. But everyone should have the choice. Those that vote yes can stay and put up with it, and those that vote no could then make plans to move to Australia. Then everyone's happy.
Objections to a referendum of the common man by a small group of leftists/academics/vested interests.
Has some crude parallels with the agrarian reforms of the Grachii brothers leading into the civil wars and rise of Caesar. The senate (a group of elitists) soon became wall paper with the emperor calling the shots. Got real messy.
Good article Chris, key point to me is “on any attempt to re-write the Treaty’s meaning. (That the Waitangi Tribunal and the Judiciary have been doing exactly that for the best part of 50 years appears to have slipped the former minister’s memory.)”. Only the Crown has been allowed to submit for non-Māori in the Tribunal (which is inherently biased) and Kiwis have been misled and let down for 50 years. I stand by democracy, one person one vote. No race or religious based “specials” thank you.
From the polarised tenor of the public debate I'd suggest that as a nation we are not mature enough to set up a commission to work on The Treaty's meaning and purpose.
A candidate might have been the Privy Council (if we hadn't cut ourselves off from them 20+ years ago to make our judiciary an entirely closed ecology). Maybe we look to the Canadians and other Commonwealth nations to provide commissioners.
I think the current situation has been inevitable sine 1840. Past Governments have ignored the articles of the treaty and impoverished Māori through land theft backed by legislation. The time has finally come for the population at large to bury the treaty once and for all and formalise its sidelining forever. Which apart from the last few decades it has been ignored anyway. Young people I speak to speak quite positively about making Māori culture more central to the day to day business of the country. I think that is because many of them are better educated about the history of the country and have a sense of conscience about what has occurred. The vast majority of the population are ignorant of the history and will vote accordingly from the point of view of being the beneficiaries of that impoverishment. Whether acknowledged or not.
It's all been lost in translation hasn't it, language, time, court and judiciary reports. Who can reliably, and objectively state what the principles are anymore, especially in our modern economic world where principles just don't seem to matter?
I think the main issue are the differences between the English rule of law, and the indigenous obligation and duty to lore. Where English concepts of possession refer to ownership and rights of property, indigenous refer to kaitiakitanga, we are merely guardians and stewards. It is our responsibility to care for and preserve the mauri.
Whilst a long read this article covers a range of incidences regarding the Treaty. I believe that the principles granted to Maori of "undisturbed possession" did not mean exclusivity in their eyes, but that the bounty is to be shared with everybody subject to Maori chieftainship over the tikanga, the ways and means of ensuring enough for all. It would appear that many iwi were willing to act alongside British laws and institutions but they were repeatedly abused.
https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/the-treaty-today-what-went-wrong-and-what…
On a side note I vote we remove Guy Fawkes celebrations and instead commemorate Parihaka.
https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/parihaka/?source=readmore-ribbon-trending
The reasons for unequal outcomes for different ethnic groups are not well understood. However it is apparent that unequal outcomes occur. It's kind of naïve to believe that everyone has the same opportunities or privileges in society. The fact is people need help, perhaps will always need help and special treatment. We need to change how we do things if we want to create different outcomes to what we are currently experiencing.
I guess what you're really saying is instead of having a referendum on the ToW. We need to have a referendum on whether NZ needs to move toward becoming a Republic?
To do that we will have to have a public discussion about what that will look like first?
Now that would be fun!
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.