About that Speech from the Throne

Written By: - Date published: 8:33 pm, December 6th, 2023 - 45 comments
Categories: climate change, Culture wars, farming, health, Maori Issues, Politics, water - Tags: , , , ,

About that Speech from the Throne

What a snooze fest! It was boringly predictable and even mentioned the strong and stable government again, as an affirmative note from the speechwriters to themselves.

The only two Ministers who get a specific mention are the Minister for Regulation (Seymour) and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Peters). The speech is carefully crafted and edited to reflect the views and interests of the coalition partners and to counter any doubts over how much consensus or coherence there is among them – smug & cocky comes to mind.

Obviously, the speech reflects the political agenda and ideology of NACTF. It implicitly criticises the previous government’s policies and praises the new government’s plans, without acknowledging any potential drawbacks or challenges. It also ignores the views and interests of many others who may not agree with this government’s direction.

As expected, the speech leans heavily to the Right and focuses on economic growth, productivity, and efficiency as the main goals and measures of success for the country. It advocates for tax relief, spending cuts, deregulation, and private sector involvement in various sectors and services, all straight from the RW Manual. Suffice to say, it doesn’t address the possible social, environmental, or cultural impacts or trade-offs of these policies, nor the distributional effects or equity issues that may arise from them.

Where the speech really becomes unhinged is in & by its cultural bias. The speech starts & finishes with a token Māori greeting, but otherwise doesn’t acknowledge or respect the diversity and identity of New Zealand’s people and cultures. For example, it proposes to disestablish the Māori Health Authority, repeal the Three Waters legislation, and remove references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from other legislation. It also implies that different rights and responsibilities based on race or ancestry are undesirable or divisive, rather than a recognition of historical and contemporary realities and aspirations.

The Māori Health Authority was created to address the health inequities and disparities faced by Māori, who have poorer health outcomes and lower life expectancy than non-Māori. The abolishment shows a lack of understanding and empathy for the historical and contemporary factors that affect Māori health, such as colonisation, discrimination, poverty, and trauma. It also undermines the principle of self-determination and autonomy, which are paramount in fully consented health care, which is enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi.

The repeal of the Three Waters legislation, which aimed to improve the management and delivery of drinking water, wastewater, and storm water services, while ensuring the protection of Māori rights and interests in water, shows a disregard and disrespect for the cultural and spiritual significance of water for Māori, who view water as a taonga and a source of life. It also violates the principle of participation and consultation that is required by the Treaty of Waitangi, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which New Zealand has endorsed under the previous National government.

In the speech, the new Government proposes to remove references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from other legislation. This shows a denial and rejection of the relevance and importance of the Treaty of Waitangi as the constitutional foundation of New Zealand and the extensive supportive existing legal framework, and the basis for a fair and just relationship between Māori and the Crown. It also contradicts the principle of protection and redress that is expected by the Treaty of Waitangi, e.g., through the Waitangi Tribunal, as well as the international human rights standards and obligations to which New Zealand has committed.

The speech indicates that the Government will restrict the use of land for carbon sequestration, which may affect the economic and environmental opportunities for Māori landowners and iwi, who have significant interests in forestry and climate change mitigation.

Taken together, these proposals reflect a cultural bias that is rooted in a narrow and exclusive vision of NZ that prioritises the interests and values of the dominant group, and marginalises and silences the voices and perspectives of the diverse and multicultural communities that make up Aotearoa New Zealand. Such a cultural bias isn’t only unfair and unjust, but also harmful and dangerous, as it erodes the social cohesion and unity, and fuels resentment and conflict that could threaten stability and security. This is in direct contrast to the rhetoric elsewhere in & of the speech and illustrates that people read what they want to read, as is known full-well by the speechwriters.

This isn’t a time for cynicism but instead for laser-sharp criticism of this Government, and to pull them up at every occasion on transparency & accountability and pin them down at every opportunity on specific evidence & relevant facts – they will be weakest at the start of this term and this is the time to rattle them and shake their smugness confidence.

45 comments on “About that Speech from the Throne ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    6 December 2023 at 8:51 pm

    Any chance of a link, or quote?

  2. Patricia Bremner 2
    6 December 2023 at 9:37 pm

    They are vindictive dismissive and dangerous. The three headed horror is just wrecking all established custom and law, back to might is right. Complete with lips drawn back from his teeth the new PM finger pointed and wagged, telling us it was new management. Not Leadership … no….. management of backroom decisions made by three cavalier men indifferent to the harm to our social fabric, as it distracts from their other plans.
    The stirred hornet nest will sting and distract and allow Law and Order to be deployed. Sad, sad.
    However they may just have over reached.

  3. Anne 3
    6 December 2023 at 9:38 pm

    This isn’t a time for cynicism but instead for laser-sharp criticism of this Government, and to pull them up at every occasion on transparency & accountability and pin them down at every opportunity on specific evidence & relevant facts.

    Absolutely! What is more, this new government is providing them with unprecedented fodder which should enable the Opposition parties to feed on it for the next three years.

    TPM is first out of the block but Labour and the Greens should not be far away. It is a time when all three parties need to work closely together on an agreed strategy that will enable them to take full advantage of the negative effects this government’s policies are going to have on the country as a whole.

    • Incognito 3.1
      6 December 2023 at 9:48 pm

      Not just the opposition parties but also the media (MSM and SM) have an important role to play in holding this shambolic Government to account and each and every individual can do the same and even submit OIA requests and submit in consultation rounds (e.g., of Parliamentary Sub-Committees), public enquiries, et cetera – this is democracy in action at the grassroots level. Or will ACT only pay lip service to freedom of speech & opinion and allow NZF to attempt to muzzle MSM?

      • Kat 3.1.1
        6 December 2023 at 10:15 pm

        "Not just the opposition parties but also the media (MSM and SM) have an important role to play in holding this shambolic Government to account………"

        Best to be optimistic, always look on the bright side of life……..but…..look at the MSM, who is in it, who reports daily……and, well…..do you really think its going to happen….

        Unless of course there is a new in depth political show headed by Kim Hill in the making……

        • Anne 3.1.1.1
          6 December 2023 at 10:52 pm

          I agree Kat. John Key effectively bribed the MSM with bottles of wine from his vineyard. Worked a treat. He had most of them living in his pocket. For all his adherence to Christianity, I can see Luxon doing likewise only it would probably be something else.

          • Robert Guyton 3.1.1.1.1
            7 December 2023 at 8:30 am

            "something else"?

            Framed photos of Judith kneeling at the pew?

            Free passes to The Upper Room?

            A golden hair from his Magisterial head…

            …oh…

            …hang on…

      • Incognito 3.1.2
        7 December 2023 at 8:53 am

        I meant Parliamentary Select Committees.

  4. SPC 4
    7 December 2023 at 9:00 am

    angelSure the political right (in all 5 Eyes nations) is taking neo-liberalism to the point of requiring an authoritarian regime to suppress an oppressed majority (as it will be post the home owning boomer generation).

    Both reason and compassion is absent in the hydra headed coalition because they are driven by short term greed – class war agenda by the haves.

  5. Ad 5
    7 December 2023 at 10:08 am

    The left won't win with the same old pc lines defending all the wet causes we spent the last 6 years funding.

    It might win the first 6 months. If we unify by supporting each other even if we don't particularly agree with what's been marched for, and if the mainstream media continue to favour the left's same liberal causes.

    It won't win more than that.

    • That_guy 5.1
      7 December 2023 at 12:08 pm

      I agree. We have got to stop doing a Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and saying that every question is either stupid ("you just don't understand, you need to educate yourself") or <something>ist. We need to start listening and have an honest appraisal of why we lost.

      It also implies that different rights and responsibilities based on race or ancestry are undesirable or divisive

      I don't hold this position because life is more complicated than that and IMHO some stuff got stolen and it should be returned, and the only practical way of doing so does involve race and ancestry.

      What I will not do is characterise anyone who holds this position as stupid and/or racist. I'm sure some of them are. But really, what's the play? If someone holds this position because they are racist, calling them racist won't make them less so. If someone holds this position because of a genuinely held belief that colourblindness is a good thing and left-wing perspective, calling them racist will drive them into the arms of the right. Which is why we lost.

    • SPC 5.2
      7 December 2023 at 2:31 pm

      What was your problem with Hipkins and his calls then?

      • That_guy 5.2.1
        7 December 2023 at 3:24 pm

        Well, quite a few, including the “captains call” ruling out a wealth tax, but the main problem is he’s not a captain and our country isn’t a ship and he did not have the authority to make that call.

        • SPC 5.2.1.1
          7 December 2023 at 3:37 pm

          Ad does not refer to captains calls. It refers to standing by wet policy positions.

          If he means traditional Labour ones, what was his problem with Hipkins captains calls?

          • That_guy 5.2.1.1.1
            7 December 2023 at 4:05 pm

            Well Hipkins is still leader, and he's ruled out a wealth tax while he is leader, so I'd call that "standing by a wet policy position".

    • Incognito 5.3
      9 December 2023 at 3:26 pm

      Your comment is a classical binary misinterpretation of the OP, which is a criticism of the new Government, not a defence of the old one.

      You seem to have been reading different MSM pieces than I have over the last 3 years, in particular.

      Your comment would have been a useful derail, at least, if it had offered any specific insight that could have been used as a segue into something less superficial and simplistic than a whining repeat of RW talking points.

      The new Government is offering nothing more than the same old, same old and no alternatives that we could use for moving forward. Its thinking and actions are deconstructive and retrograde and backward looking and navel-gazing is the last thing the Left should be doing right now (and definitely not under this Post!).

  6. That_guy 6
    7 December 2023 at 12:19 pm

    Calling something a "dog whistle" implies that anyone who responds to that message is a dog.

    Yet to be convinced that's a good electoral strategy. Not seeing much honest self-reflection of why we lost.

    • SPC 6.1
      7 December 2023 at 2:27 pm

      Check out the actual meaning of the term dog whistle.

      The only place one finds people called dogs is in the Christian bible – immoral dogs and dogs outside a city. It is presumably from this source that a term for a pregnant female with a dubious male partner derives.

      • That_guy 6.1.1
        7 December 2023 at 2:55 pm

        I’ll do that if you check out the actual meaning of the term “electoral loss”.

        Pretty funny that I make a point about perhaps not telling people constantly that they should educate themselves and in the same thread I get told to educate myself. Point proven.

        • SPC 6.1.1.1
          7 December 2023 at 3:00 pm

          No a strawman does not work.

          You made a statement of untruth, that you cannot defend.

          That is called losing.

          • That_guy 6.1.1.1.1
            7 December 2023 at 3:22 pm

            lol yeah because “dog whistle” means “a device for emitting sounds in a particular frequency” and only ever means that and words never change meanings in different contexts and people don’t ever interpret the meanings of words according to a particular political context. Cool story bro.

            • SPC 6.1.1.1.1.1
              7 December 2023 at 3:32 pm

              Educate yourself and stop making up stuff about a site moderator – are you ignorant of site policy?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

              • That_guy …
                7 December 2023 at 4:02 pm

                Yeah, ok, "educate myself". Yep. Let me explain in greater detail. This post IMHO implies that the statement:

                "different rights and responsibilities based on race or ancestry are undesirable or divisive"

                Is a dog whistle. Not a value, or a position, or a honestly held belief. A dog whistle. Even if you accept that the political meaning of that term is the only possible meaning, which I do not, what this says is that it's not a belief worth discussing or respecting, despite the fact that about 15 years ago it was a perfectly respectable position on the left. It clearly falls into the category of denigrating and casually dismissing honestly held positions or beliefs of potential left voters.

                And all I said was: I am not convinced using this language is a good political strategy. Because some people on the left are in the bad habit of characterising honestly held positions of others as stupid or evil, by saying things like "educate yourself" or "you're <something>ist."

                And then you come along and tell me to educate myself.
                And then other posters actually explain to me the political meaning of the term "dog whistle" as if I don't already know and as if it's impossible for suitably motivated people to interpret it in another way.

                Which simultaneously misses my point and proves it.

                • SPC …
                  7 December 2023 at 4:08 pm

                  Evasion.

                  Calling something a "dog whistle" implies that anyone who responds to that message is a dog.

                  No it does not. End of.

                  • That_guy …
                    7 December 2023 at 4:15 pm

                    Do you believe that the statement:

                    "different rights and responsibilities based on race or ancestry are undesirable or divisive"

                    is:
                    1) a coded message designed specifically to appeal to racists without actually being blatantly racist

                    or

                    2) a moral and political position that some people on both the left and the right honestly hold?

                    • SPC …
                      7 December 2023 at 5:37 pm

                      That is a question for the person who wrote the post, they might make a response if you ask them to.

    • Incognito 6.2
      9 December 2023 at 3:32 pm

      You’ve been commenting on this site for over 7 years and you claim or pretend not to understand what dog whistle means!?

      In fact, you used the term only 6 months ago:

      I agree that they aren't really interested in road safety, and I agree that it's a dog whistle. [my italics]

      https://thestandard.org.nz/blowin-in-the-wind/#comment-1952136

      FYI, ‘dog whistle’ is a very well-known term in politics:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

      So, please don’t insult our intelligence.

      Stick to the topic of the OP or take it somewhere else, e.g., OM, a Guest Post, or start your own blog.

  7. Patricia Bremner 7
    7 December 2023 at 1:00 pm

    Ok start victim blaming!! That is silly.

    We lost because they have money and we don't.

    They have billionaires and we don't.

    They have well supported well resourced representatives and we don't.

    Our representatives failed to represent us, and went off on some tangent. Some were shown to be inadequate.

    Too many people did not value the social gains, so they voted for the money, because their pockets were effected by events.

    When people get scared, they vote conservatively.

    Buyer’s remorse is setting in as they read the fine print, and the see the tears in the social fabric.

    • That_guy 7.1
      7 December 2023 at 1:12 pm

      Thank you for at least starting a conversation about why we lost.

      We lost because they have money and we don't.

      They have billionaires and we don't.

      They have well supported well resourced representatives and we don't.

      All of these things were still true in the years that we won.

      Our representatives failed to represent us, and went off on some tangent. Some were shown to be inadequate.

      Agree.

      Too many people did not value the social gains, so they voted for the money.

      Disagree, I don't think people voted "for" anything. This was a vote against something.. a set of values that they didn't agree with, because some reasonable questions about those values weren't answered.

      My idea (and it is only an idea that deserves to be inspected and challenged) is that we got into a bad habit of characterising anyone with questions or reservations as stupid ("you don't understand, you should educate yourself") or biased ("you are <something>ist or <something>phobic and therefore are evil, so your opinion doesn't count").

      When that happens, no human ever says "why yes, I am what you say I am, I'll educate and decolonise myself forthwith". What they do say is "FU, I'm off to vote for Winston First".

      For example, with Treaty settlements, I would respond to people saying "why should we allocate resources on the basis of race" by saying first that it's a reasonable question, and second by pointing to specifics. Like the time when there were two laws on the books simultaneously, one prohibiting Māori from developing their land, one confiscating Māori land that was undeveloped. And I'd say: stuff got stolen, on the basis of race and heredity. So for practical purposes we must include race and heredity in the return of that stuff.

      And that's the start of a conversation, and conversations is how we win votes. Implying that people are dogs isn't.

      • Kat 7.1.1
        7 December 2023 at 3:19 pm

        In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans…………………

        It is a misnomer that the saying 'dog whistle' implies people are actual dogs…….words, context and meanings are very important in language…..otherwise communications and understandings become garbled…..

        • That_guy 7.1.1.1
          7 December 2023 at 3:33 pm

          You can’t stop people interpreting language in a way that doesn’t necessarily match the Oxford English Dictionary, and using this loaded term gives people yet another reason to think that the left looks down on them if they are inclined to do so. It’s a bad strategy.

      • Patricia Bremner 7.1.2
        7 December 2023 at 5:53 pm

        They did not vote for the $250 a fortnight? They fell for the sprat to catch a mackerel.

        Any money voters get will quickly be eaten up in fees and rate rises meeting tax blow out shortfalls. They will quickly be in negative territory as these inflationary policies are enacted. ie it is being admitted that Auckland rates will balloon, all rates will be higher to pay higher commercial insurance costs and meet storm repairs.

        This government wants private public arrangements, where shareholders take the wealth in dividends, while the rest of us pay as we use and cover any losses.

        Todays pirates come in suits.

      • Incognito 7.1.3
        9 December 2023 at 3:44 pm

        You build a straw man.

        You burn down the straw man.

        It’s a monologue with yourself and you feel good about yourself, obviously. Work on your listening skills before you comment again under my Posts.

  9. Mike the Lefty 9
    7 December 2023 at 4:56 pm

    I suspect that King Charles would neither know nor care about what his representative the GG says in his name. If he did I'm sure the speech would have been substantially different.