sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

The one sound loud enough to be heard above even the most determined of political noise-makers, is the sound of the majority making up its mind

Public Policy / opinion
The one sound loud enough to be heard above even the most determined of political noise-makers, is the sound of the majority making up its mind
ct

By Chris Trotter*

Are we living in a world where, increasingly, “noise” is drowning out “sound”? A world in which it is getting harder and harder to distinguish the discrete voices of reason from the angry roar of the crowd. Where we are assailed by the deafening racket of bad political actors determined to drown out any and all opinions but their own.

Political “noise”, and its impact on society’s ability to “hear” itself, was brought to life vividly by Emeritus Professor Nigel Biggar from Oxford University in his keynote address to the AGM of the Free Speech Union, held at the Viaduct Events Centre on Saturday, 9 November 2024.

Pilloried by the Left for daring to express the heretical view that colonialism wasn’t an unalloyed evil, and that the British Empire, in particular, wasn’t all bad, Biggar recalled the 2016 Oxford Union debate concerning the fate of Oriel College’s statue of Cecil Rhodes. The enemies of colonisation were determined to remove this memorial to one of Nineteenth Century Britain’s greatest imperial swashbucklers (think Elon Musk with a Maxim gun) and Biggar was on hand to argue that it makes more sense to understand your country’s history than to cancel it.

Every time an anti-Rhodes speaker sat down, Biggar told the surprisingly large audience of between 200-300 AGM attendees, the venerable debating chamber would erupt into wild and sustained applause. To the casual observer, support for the removal of Rhodes’ statute would have seemed overwhelming. Looking around the Chamber, however, Biggar noticed that the number not cheering and clapping was almost as large as the number who were. The “anti-colonialists” simply made a lot more noise. (The “Rhodes Must Fall!” motion was eventually carried 245/212.)

This is what political noise does. It renders nuance and subtlety impossible. It makes the voices of dissenters appear weak. Most importantly, deliberately amplified political noise causes those holding dissenting views to doubt the efficacy of their own judgement, intimidating them into inaction and silence. Political noise thus achieves the same result as switching-off an opponent’s microphone. The sounds made by individual contributors are lost in the deafening noise of the mob.

That Prof. Biggar’s speech to the FSU’s AGM, and the introduction of David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to Parliament, occurred in the same week could be seen as a happy coincidence. In the week ahead, a Toitū te Tiriti (Honour the Treaty) hikoi will set off from the Far North for Wellington. As it wends its way south, the ratio of noise to sound promises to be politically instructive.

According to the latest poll, conducted by Curia Research between 3-7 October 2024, 46 percent of those surveyed support the Treaty Principles Bill, 25 percent oppose it, and 29 percent are “unsure”. When compared to Curia’s first poll on the Bill, published on 14 March 2024, these latest results indicate a substantial drop in the number of respondents indicating assent. Back in March, the supporters of Seymour’s legislation outnumbered its opponents 3:1.

What caused this drop, from 3:1 to 2:1, has become a matter for debate. When Curia’s first poll was taken, Seymour’s principles possessed an admirable clarity. By October, however, the second of the three fundamental principles had been complicated considerably by the Bill’s drafters – to the point where its meaning was no longer readily intelligible to the ordinary voter. This would certainly explain the 7-point rise in the number of respondents indicating uncertainty.

The 7 percentage point rise in those indicating opposition to the Bill may also reflect the confusion created by the revised version of its second principle. There is certainly quite a difference between March’s Version 1:

The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property.

And October’s Version 2:

The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreement with the Crown.

The hitherto staunchest supporters of Seymour’s legislative initiative may well consider the revised version of the Second Principle to be altogether too “Treaty-ish” in its wording and intent to be worthy of their continuing support.

Alternatively, the relentless demonisation of Seymour’s bill by all major media organisations, the overwhelming majority of political journalists and columnists, and – most effectively – by  the nation’s leading political cartoonists, may be convincing an increasing number of the Bill’s supporters that they are indeed guilty, as charged, of being on “the wrong side of history”.

By preventing its supporters from hearing either themselves, or the clear plurality of other New Zealanders who share their views, think, the deafening political noise generated by the Bill’s institutional opponents, particularly the universities and the Waitangi Tribunal, may simply, through grinding emotional attrition, be turning the numbers around.

This is the bet that National and NZ First have taken. That, by the time the six months of select committee hearings have concluded, conservative New Zealanders will have grown heartly sick of the whole business.

It could be a shrewd bet, because the select committee hearings will doubtless be drowned out by the relentless cacophony of the Bill’s opponents. What’s more, the constant and public vilification of the Bill’s supporters will not only encourage their shell-shocked withdrawal from the debate, but also convince an ever-increasing number of New Zealanders that the political game is no longer worth the candle.

Alternatively, the actions of the Treaty Principles Bill’s opponents may provoke the same sort of angry public backlash that followed the violent end of the anti-vaccination mandate movement’s occupation of Parliament Grounds.

The Police are expecting upwards of 25,000 Māori protesters and their allies to descend upon the Parliamentary Precinct on Monday, 18 November. Among those allies, Police anticipate having to deal with a large number of gang members intending to defy the legal ban on public displays of gang insignia. It is also thought that a contingent of activists determined to link the “anti-colonial struggles” of Māori and Palestinians will be part of the Hikoi.

The Hikoi leaders have assured the Police that its demonstration of opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill will be peaceful. But the level of political noise, and the passions it can hardly avoid arousing, may outstrip the ability of the leaders to keep their followers under control. If the whole thing turns pear-shaped, then National and NZ First will lose their bet.

In the aftermath of the American elections, the Coalition Government would be unwise to position themselves too closely alongside a noisy – let alone a violent – minority. The one sound loud enough to be heard above the efforts of even the most determined makers of political noise, is the sound of the long-suffering majority making up its mind.


*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.

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.

14 Comments

Jenny May sucking the lemon while listening to David Seymour telling her straight

https://youtu.be/5xHuQeAhab0?feature=shared

Up
12

Bertrand  Russell, I think something like - it’s times like these that the ignorant are too loud and the intelligent too quiet.

Up
12

In the meantime, the flight to Australia will continue.  Many New Zealanders are simply voting with their feet.  Just like South Africa.

Up
8

Any plans to hop on a flight yourself?

Up
1

Suggest no camping at Parliament Grounds this time.......

Up
2

I wonder if they have upgraded the sprinkler system and the sound system in parliament grounds.

Up
2

Just host a NZ Careers Expo on the lawn, that'll get them moving.

Up
5

That change to the second principle screams of lawyer speak to preemptively create a defence to law suits that would inevitably come.  Unfortunately I can see how it alienates staunch supporters of the bill, dissent doesn't necessarily mean more people agree with the pro treaty side of the debate, it may mean that there is a growing group that believes the bill doesn't go far enough.

Polarisation of groups on either side of the debate will lead to extreme views on both sides.  To date those on the pro-equality side have been happy with the unifying intent of the bill, watering it down or making it's intent opaque may push part of that group to voice more anti-maori sentiments.

Maybe the only way to achieve equal treatment of all New Zealanders is to sweep away the Monarchist past and become a republic.

Maybe that is the endgame for those with long term vision.

Up
5

Are we, in any way, a mature enough country to set up a workable republic?

Everything is seen as adversarial rather than collaborative and who, of the current crop, would you want as a head of state?

Up
0

Well written Mr Trotter, lucid and to point. Yes the long suffering majority have made up their minds. See the comment made on the David Seymour " interview" by Miss May.

Up
1

Very well written CT. David Seymour's critics are very clearly afraid that he will gain traction, especially as he makes it very clear that all he really wants to achieve is return robust democracy to NZ, while recent actions and decisions made in the name of the treaty appear to be undermining democracy, which in effect goes against Article 3.

Up
3

Can Seymour tack on the National Anthem to his Bill? That charade in Dublin where we only got the Maori version sung is a disgrace - and they get the haka too. Disgraceful and un-democratic.

Up
1

The really disconcerting thing is that the noise isn't directed against the content of the bill: it's directed at denying there should be any discussion in the first place. 

The interruption by the protestor in parliament's chamber, of the apology to the survivors of state care, certainly wasn't helping their cause.

Up
0