By Chris Trotter*
The death of King Tuheitia could hardly have come at a worse time for Maoridom. The power of the Kingitanga to unify te iwi Māori was demonstrated powerfully at January’s national hui, where upwards of 10,000 people answered King Tuheitia’s summons to the Turangawaewae marae. But now, at this fractious historical hour, the power of the Kingitanga is passing into untested hands.
If the traditional “kingmakers” of the royalist iwi choose unwisely, then the divisions and tensions between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti may widen further. In the weeks and months that lie ahead, rash and angry words from King Tuheitia’s successor have the potential to ignite a political conflagration. In these circumstances, Māori and Pakeha have an equally pressing need for the Kotahitanga [Unity] that was the late King’s guiding star.
This need for unity was expressed with affecting sincerity at the King’s tangi by someone many New Zealanders would regard as its most unlikely champion. As the leader of the conservative coalition government responsible for sharpening the points of Māori-Pakeha difference, Christopher Luxon’s participation in the King’s funeral ceremonies could easily have been construed as perfunctory, or, even worse, provocative. That he spoke of his relationship with the King with such obvious emotion, his voice close to breaking, unquestionably impressed his Tainui hosts. That said, the thought surely crossed their minds: “What is it with this Pakeha, who weeps with us, even as his ministers assault us?”
What indeed? The most obvious answer is that Luxon, like all politicians, is a complex mixture of emotion and calculation; sincerity and subterfuge. What’s more, though reason reels from the thought, Luxon, like many politicians, can be both at the same time. Very few Pakeha New Zealanders are immune to the extraordinary, almost magical, power which Maoridom is able to summon at moments of great historical significance. It brings our emotions suddenly, and often unexpectedly, to the surface, catching us off-guard.
This blending of the spiritual with the material was a skill which, until relatively recently, was manifest in all cultures. Those over the age of 70 will recall the state funeral of the slain President, John F. Kennedy: the soldiers slow-marching with arms reversed; the riderless horse, its master’s boots facing backwards; and that unforgettable image, almost unbearably poignant, of Kennedy’s young son innocently snapping his father a filial salute as the funeral cortege passed by.
Symbols, and the powerful feelings they evoke, were much more available to Westerners sixty years ago. New Zealand, now one of the world’s most secular societies, was then an emphatically Christian nation. Pakeha religiosity was strong in the 1950s and 60s, and, come Sunday morning, most of the nation’s churches were full. Back then, the spiritual world and the material world overlaid each other and intermingled in ways that today’s secular Pakeha would struggle to accept.
But not today’s Māori. In te Ao Māori the spiritual infuses the material in ways that at once entrance and confuse Pakeha. A cynic might say that this spirituality, this affinity for the metaphysical, is Maoridom’s secret weapon, and that Christopher Luxon is as susceptible to its magic as any number of his equally entranced compatriots.
Why, then, does he not take advantage of it? Why impress Tainui and the Kingitanga with your tears, and then return to a Parliament where Act and NZ First continue to drag the National Party down the path of “pernicious polarisation?
Typically, “pernicious polarisation” is initiated by political elites that have been electorally sidelined and are willing to do almost anything to get back in the game. They deliberately stoke class, racial and/or religious divisions – often in cahoots with more extreme groups. Their hope is to extend their electoral reach by advancing under the cover of their new allies’ more inflammatory political rhetoric, and by quietly promising to introduce at least some of the extremists’ most radical policies as soon as power has been reclaimed.
Clearly, the National Party, alongside Act and NZ First, has been drawing heavily from the pernicious polarisers’ playbook. Equally clearly, it has worked: National has reclaimed the Treasury Benches and is sitting pretty as the dominant party within a conservative coalition government.
National’s problem, now, is that, having been assisted into office by its more extreme coalition partners, it is required to deliver on the promises made to get them (and keep them) onside. Since these commitments are mostly bound up with Act’s and NZ First’s determination to rein-in what both parties believe to be an over-mighty Maoridom, New Zealand’s politics risk becoming convulsed to a degree not seen since the 1981 Springbok Tour.
Such convulsions are most unlikely to spare the National Party. Its record on race-relations is a proud one, and trashing it to keep David Seymour and Winston Peters happy is not a course of action a significant number of National Party MPs and members are likely to accept with equanimity. Indeed, the louder the chorus of protest from Māori and “progressive” Pakeha New Zealanders grows, the more misgivings National is likely to experience.
There will be some in the party who look to National’s past and argue that civil unrest has always been the Right’s friend. Certainly, National romped back into office after the 1951 Waterfront Dispute, and Rob Muldoon’s facilitation of the 1981 Springbok Tour saw National returned (narrowly) to power. But, the past is not always prelude, sometimes it represents an end, not a beginning.
With the King’s tangi as a backdrop, Christopher Luxon could earn considerable praise from across the country if he was to announce that, as a coronation gift, he was giving the new Māori monarch his solemn promise that the National Party would not allow Act’s Treaty Principles Bill to reach the floor of Parliament.
Would David Seymour respond by breaking up the Coalition? Quite possibly. Luxon should let him. National still has plenty of money. Labour and the Greens are in no position to mount a credible threat to National’s re-election chances. Indeed, the parties of the Left would be hard-pressed not to cheer Luxon on!
Moreover, if National categorically ruled out entering into another coalition with Act and NZ First, and Luxon, taking inspiration from Kamala Harris’ playbook, declared it time to “turn the page” on the politics of racial division, then he and his party would likely be rewarded with a runaway electoral victory. Kiwis don’t like political confrontation at the best of times – especially not with their own friends and whanau.
Kotahitanga, in addition to being King Tuheitia’s guiding star, could very successfully double as National’s campaign slogan.
*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.
75 Comments
I think CT hits the nail on the head here; 'Why impress Tainui and the Kingitanga with your tears, and then return to a Parliament where Act and NZ First continue to drag the National Party down the path of “pernicious polarisation?"
But while he tags NACT with this, the truth is it is all political parties who are guilty of this polarisation. The fall out of government policies penalises working class Kiwis severely. And this government has made it worse for the thousands of front line workers in government departments, Health, Fire, Police, Corrections and so on by demanding that those departments save money, but don't impact the front line. The reality is that the front line is significantly impacted, and all those front line workers have just had the work they do significantly devalued.
But they pollies don't really care because they are on a good wicket thank you very much.
Generations of politicians quake in fear of the banks and big corporations rather than enacting policies that genuinely serve and support their constituents. when can we expect that to change?
... some would argue the opposite , that it was Jacinda Ardern & Chris Napkins who were dragging NZ down the path of pernicious polarisation .... everywhichway you look at it they were easily the worst , most incompetent government ever .... no one had ever divided and enraged us on race relations like they did ...
My read of the article is that CT is railing against political parties who implement policies that favour the rich and powerful over ordinary Kiwis. The Labour Government tried to implement by stealth racist policies that amount to apartheid. They are different things although as bad as each other.
I think it is quite strange that Maori always blame everything on colonialism, but then they have this king. Anyway, that is another matter. I agree Jacinda did so much damage to race relations here, that is almost beyond repair. Hipkins obviously carried this on, tried to water it down a bit, and then got his marching orders, and will soon be fired. He is actually a lot better than his predicted replacement, but don't tell Labour. I think as soon as the treaty is consigned to history the better. The treaty principles initiative is widely supported, somewhere in the 60-70% region, and the exact detail has not been see yet. There will be wide public support for it, and, from Winston's hint last week that if there is wide public support National and NZ First may change their mind on supporting it....As soon as we get to the stage where there are no special rights, no separate this and separate that...no unelected anything according to race, then the better off we will all be.
He is actually a lot better than his predicted replacement, but don't tell Labour.
Just a reminder of the portfolios Chris Hipkins was in charge of before he became PM:
- Education
- Health
- Covid-19 response.
Han Solo : [1:15:22] Uh, everything's under control. Situation normal.
Voice : What happened?
Han Solo : [getting nervous] Uh, we had a slight weapons malfunction, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?
So what you are saying is that you are wanting unity by breaking up the coalition unity.
And this?
'Moreover, if National categorically ruled out entering into another coalition with Act and NZ First, and Luxon, taking inspiration from Kamala Harris’ playbook, declared it time to “turn the page” on the politics of racial division, then he and his party would likely be rewarded with a runaway electoral victory.'
Bizarre.
We have to have an open discussion about what our citizenship means, for a divided house cannot prosper, and prosper we must to survive.
That discussion also has to be reasoned, disinterested and divorced from the polarising rhetoric coming from all sides, that is also given the most attention in media driven by the desire for attention.
Because of the adversarial, increasingly Manichean nature of New Zealand society, do we believe we are mature enough to undertake that task and achieve consensus?
I agree.
Maori have become something of a political football, tossed around for votes by both sides. My sense is that Trotter is correct in that Luxon is not comfortable with the more divisive coaltion partner policies on Crown/Maori relations. But I guess it is a useful distraction from the poor state of the economy and general lack of any meaningful economic policy stimulus to date.
It's quite ironic that some of our most successful economic entities are Iwi based investment trusts, notably Ngai Tahu but also many others. Meanwhile the NZ50 languishes. The Maori economy will continue to grow in size and influence while corporate (pakeha) NZ stagnates. Every year there are more and more Maori students graduating in medicine, law, accounting and design. More and more law and accountancy firms practicing kaupapa Maori. I am increasingly shifting audit and law contracts to these entities from traditional firms.
You are all so focused on TPM that you actually cannot see the progress Maori are making.
"...some of our most successful economic entities are Iwi based investment trusts," = preferential govt sourcing & lower tax status
"...Every year there are more and more Maori students graduating in medicine, law, " = years of preferential racist academic selection policies selection with lower entry qualifications
Progress?
Possibly lower entry qualifications, but not inferior students. If you think that the grades of Tabatha and Kingsley from Kings and St Cuths, privately tutored up the wazoo, are the same degree of difficulty as those of a Maori boy/girl from the East Cape, then you have a lot to learn.
Such schemes exist everywhere, Australia, UK, USA and Canada. There are adjustments for mental health, disrupted childhood and any number of toxic risk factors. Being Maori or Polynesian is just another adjustment designed to make society a fairer place. Besides, Maori & Pasifika doctors are far more likely to stay here and not take off to Australia.
Correct eg Sanitarium and they should be treated like a normal for profit business, this brings up what constituts a charity. Nga Tahu I understand have paid the premiums for their tribal memebers health policy which is excellent and good practice that other charities should follow for the benefit of their memebers or communitieis.
And yet it is much to the delight and power grab spin of the left to paint the collective Maori in victim hood.
Funny how we don’t see Maori leaders stand up and lead by example - telling, showing, helping those f-tards to be better citizens of NZ. To empower themselves and take responsibility for their own actions…
What ACT is proposing is not divisive simply democratic transparency. Maori business in some areas benefits from being a registered non taxable charity and not paying rates on Maori Land. Maori may come to regret what opening a panodoras box results in and no I am not Maori bashing just wanting equality of treatment otherwise at some point non Maori may see fit to legislate special rights for themselves - I do not wnat that for any one.
The current Govt is only righting the wrongs of the previous 6 years, and ensuring NZ remains democratic ie. 1 person 1 vote. The previous Government was sending us down the road to apartheid - who were drawing most heavily "from the pernicious polarisers' playbook". Your ire is misdirected CT.
Exactly, in the case of of Wellington, an incompetent is voted in by people that don't pay rates or own property. She gets voted in promising to spend other peoples money on causes that rate payers have to pay for but don't want....and everything turns to custard. How unusual.
Mr Jackson’s authority on democracy has no more credibility than his take on morality. I base that on his abhorrent opinion on the “roast busters” violation of underaged girls that he wilfully and cheerfully broadcast on the radio. Quite honestly that act in itself, should have precluded any possibility as a potential MP. Poto Williams didn’t get much right but she got that dead right when she said as much.
This article I think suggests as well that there is no unity in the Kingitanga itself, that could be taken for granted as to the succession and its aftermath. Not exactly War of the Roses territory but it does not seem to require much of the onion skin to be peeled back to reveal hostility, jealousy and plain old hubris thriving between the relative Iwi.
Agree. Maori "King" represents Tainui and a few other iwi only. The reporting of crowd sizes has been grossly over-inflated to bolster the claims of unity.
The Maori monarchy is a very recent concept and was originally a response to the British crown. Watching the players in the current power vacuum will be interesting.
Chris : the civil unrest we witnessed in 2022 was a scale worse than the 1981 Springbok rugby tour ... for 24 days more than 1000 people camped out on the Beehive's front lawn .... have you forgotten this ?
... Jacinda Ardern split us as a nation on race & on Covid19 mandates ... she alienated our most productive sector , the farmers ... they flocked to Wellington in their tractors ... forgotten that , too ?
Any comparisons to Muldoon are risible : he was a featherweight in pissing off the people compared to Ardern ...
Just 164 years ago, the Maori owned the whole country. There was a treaty signed, so the Maori wouldn't attack the British who wanted to settle here. Then the British pretty much ignored the treaty, moved in and confiscated or swindled most of the land from the Maori.
Giving Maori a token say on things now is a small effort in trying to honor the treaty that was signed. Contract law.
How has it affected you personally in your life, that you feel so upset about it?
Um, no. Don't think so. The treaty was signed (one of the reasons) so that the British would protect Maori that were ruthlessly attacking each other. Maori then attacked the British and got trounced and their land taken. That happens in war. Generally it is the purpose.
How has it affected me?
Where I went to boarding school maori kids got their education free c/o the Maori Education Foundation. My parents had to pay.
I could list any number of instances where maori receive privileges no other race does...shall I name a few off the top of my head?
Maori schools, maori kindergartens, maori welfare, maori housing, maori health, maori farming, maori tv, maori language funding, maori prisoner programmes, maori education scholarships, maori consultation rights under the RMA, maori wards, maori trade training, special maori content in the education curriculum, maori home loans, maori seats in Parliament, maori positions on government agencies, special maori authority tax rate, ......et.al.
'Comrade' Ardern as I call her, gave maori billions. One billion in one budget alone.
Maori were very lucky the British arrived here first. If the Germans, Spanish or Portuguese had encountered any resistance the consequences would have been very dire indeed. Then there's the endless whining about 'colonisation'.
Good Lord, what a tantrum. Pretty sure the "Maori Education Foundation" didn't pay the boarding fees for whatever school you were at. Maori home loans? Please show me.
If you're so unhappy, I hear you get looked after pretty well if you arrive in ol Blighty via dinghy and not a Boeing Dreamliner these days.
I can state to a certainty that Maori home loans were available in the 80's at least. One of my troops in the Airforce got one to help him put his family into a home they owned. It made it easier for him than for me, but I advised him to do it. He had sought advice as to whether he should, as he feared a backlash amongst his peers. My advice was his peers didn't need to know, his priority had to be his whanau not his pride, and if anyone ever gave him grief for it he had to tell me, and I'd kick their arse. At that time we were all eligible for a State Servant loan as well. Neither of them were worth much and not sufficient in themselves but at 3% when interest rates were north of 18% made buying a home just possible. So he, because he was Maori was eligible for two state assisted loans where as I only one. Did it bother me at the time or now. Not one iota. He was a hard working, well liked chap who knew his stuff. But he also needed help to support his family (he started young) as none of our wages were even close to great.
Maori Home Loans....your hard-earned tax dollars at work folks.
https://kaingaora.govt.nz/en_NZ/home-ownership/kainga-whenua/kainga-whe…
It is interesting that this is for Iwi (multiply owned) land only. This was identified years ago as an issue where the banks would not lend to build on the land. I also think it is somewhat different to the point being made here. These loans are to facilitate building private homes on Maori land. In the event of an individual defaulting on the mortgage a bank would not be able to seize the land as well (how does this work on leasehold property?). So the banks wouldn't touch it.
The point made above is that Maori get help that is not available to non-Maori. I don't think this qualifies.
This is an unusually naive post from Trotter. He thinks that
1. most NZers care for Tuheitia (yea, nah),
2. most NZers vote on a single issue (they don't), and
3. Luxon / National would happily take a chance to sacrifice real power for six+ years over an issue concerning the Treaty / Te Tiriti and, by extension, race relations (not a snow ball's chance in hell).
For Trotter's misguided belief that Luxon could just tear up the Confidence and Supply Agreements to work, one of three things would have to occur:
1. National forms a minority Government for the rest of this Parliament and he reaches out to all parties to pass legislation on a case-by-case basis. (Willis would struggle to get her budgets passed without some formal agreements on supply), or
2. Luxon calls an early election in the fanciful / deluded belief he'd have an absolute majority afterwards. That would never happen and he'd then be stuffed if he needed NZF and Act after such an election. Worse, he'd have to resign because they'd never trust him again and we all know Winston never forgets or forgives. What-ever might happen, it's too uncertain and speculative compared to the current reality that he's in the strongest position now. (btw it's Trotter that is deluded on this, not Luxon, who's too pragmatic to pick this), or
3. Luxon reaches out to his partners and renegotiates the C&S agreements. As much as he might like to, I don't think he'd pick this option either. It weakens the Government and, once again, calls into question whether they can trust him. He can't force this option without resorting to options 1 or 2.
Let's not forget it was National that recently championed the requirement for local councils to remove their Maori Wards or hold referenda on them next year. Given this is now enshrined in legislation, does Trotter really expect Luxon to pass legislation to 'walk this back'? As he'd need support from the left to do so, National would probably be caned by voters at the next opportunity. He must know they will be proxy referenda on the Treaty / Te Tiriti which, I believe, most people want. He'd be better to wait and see how the Treaty Principles Bill process goes, and 'read the room' when the referenda results are available.
The other weakness in Trotter's essay is that he implies NZ is afraid to grapple with this issue because of the possibility of civil unrest. He's right to observe that National's bed-rock foundation is law and order, which is why Simeon Brown was so quick to call out Hawkes Bay Regional Council for allowing patch-wearing gang members into the Council Chamber when it voted to retain its Maori Ward for next year's election. NZers won't tolerate bullies and thugs who try to subvert democratic processes.
.... nicely argued ! .... also , Labour cannot win an election if Chris Napkins remains their leader ... he's a dead weight throwback to the bad old times with Ardern & Robertson ... the ones who wrecked the joint ...
Labour need to freshen up with a brand new leadership team ... and to fully explain their policies ... no more surprises , little landmines like " co-governance " ....
Labour cannot win an election with or without Hipkins full stop. That is because the election understandably rejected any notion of a Labour/GreensTMP coalition and the subsequent dreadful, rancorous and undisciplined performances by the latter two of those proves just what a prudent and valid decision that was. On that record there is nothing at all to indicate that the electorate might change its viewpoint, in reality it can only have hardened.
CT is grasping at straws. The coalition are, surprisingly, working very well as a team and restoring the balance of power back from undemocratic and racist co-governance. I am especially enjoying the tag team approach in parliament where they're making mince meat of the paltry socialist opposition.
The Treaty Principles Bill is an important test case of public opinion on whether we want to retain a separatist past or move forwards on a more equal footing. Both National and NZ First are sitting on fence waiting to see how the polls react to the Bill. They will very likely swing in support of it at the next election depending on the outcome.
Of course, we still need to restore balance to the debate mediated by MSM so the Bill gets fair treatment. This wont happen before the first reading at the end of this year. But the debt weighing on public MSM will force major restructuring and that will be an opportunity to restore balance to the narrative.
"A cynic might say that this spirituality, this affinity for the metaphysical, is Maoridom’s secret weapon, and that Christopher Luxon is as susceptible to its magic as any number of his equally entranced compatriots".
That cynic has apparently forgotten or ignored the fact that Chris Luxon is a Christian.
CT is once again, not afraid to mix it up where it matters. This is a big issue for all of us. If it remains unattended it will, like a cancer, eat away at all of us & kills us. Already there are a million souls born in these lands who do not call NZ home. Opportunity & biased race relations over the last half century have driven them away, & who can blame them.
Remember, when you talk about Maori owning everything before the white fellas arrive, this is not so. The different tribes as we know them today, were actually separate Maori nations before we came, & the lands they lived on were only theirs if they could defend them from their marauding neighbors.
I would like to see Seymours bill progress to the table so that everyone can have their say. The pollies don't want this to happen as they feel that they & their elite colleagues have it in hand. They do not. If you think that Maori are pissed today, that will be nothing compared to when the non-Maori rise up. I hope I am wrong.
Sorry, very late to this party. I’m not with you on this one, CT. Unity on what basis? Chamberlain-like pursuit of peace through appeasing the New Treatyists? Is the fundamentalist agenda of the Māori Nationalists not in itself dangerously polarising and self-seeking? Is it wrong to resist unity which requires thinking Kiwis to capitulate to the perverted logic of a purposefully misinterpreted treaty? For that unity’s sake, should we give away our first decent opportunity to have a voice in this country’s treaty future?
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.