Chris Trotter’s Arguments for the Treaty Principles Bill Are Flawed

Written By: - Date published: 6:08 pm, October 18th, 2024 - 49 comments
Categories: act, david seymour, Maori Issues, national/act government - Tags: ,

This is an excerpt from Mountain Tui’s substack article: Aotearoa’s Big Lies

Yesterday, Chris Trotter, who labels himself a “libertarian socialist” – and writes regularly for Newstalk ZB and other publications – came out swinging against opponents of David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill (“TPB”). Trotter called such people of “moral certainty, dogmatism, and unwillingness to compromise.”

And I wondered not for the first time if such accusations were not in and of themselves projections.

Trotter argues the indeterminable line that David Seymour uses i.e. human rights and equality – and goes further, gaslighting opponents –

When will the partisans … [he calls those who oppose the TPB] .. finally notice the death’s head on their caps?

That, driven by their political passion to atone for the sins of the colonial fathers, they are willing to subvert the Rule of Law, deny human equality, misrepresent their country’s history, and abandon its democratic system of government…

ACT got ~8% of those who voted, Trotter.

The Rule of Law is also defined under our judiciary and legislation.

It is this government which is not only systematically attacking our judiciary, but also rolling back decades of legislation in order to enact a vision espoused by those such as Don Brash and Alan Gibbs.

And they are doing it at all breakneck speed – systematically undercutting NZ’s democratic processes and undermining transparency and law to effect their agenda.

And using their opportunity in government as a minority party to dig at the very foundational legs of the country.

So in what world does any respectable commentator – let alone who calls themself the “leading left wing” voice misattribute such realities?

Trotter goes on to say –

New Zealand must remain a democratic state in which all citizens enjoy equal rights, irrespective of wealth, gender, or ethnic origin, and in which the property rights of all citizens are safeguarded by the Rule of Law.

And it’s one of those arguments that are without equal – and which Seymour employs constantly.

Who would argue that we all care about human rights1 – that people should be equal, free, and able to acess property irrespective of “wealth, gender, or ethnic origin”?

And that we care about democracy.

Yet therein – in that seemingly inalienable paragraph above, we can perhaps spot the finest of contradictions.

And the weakness and hypocrisy of such arguments.

We are in a democracy and it is democracy that allows and encourages citizens, including the most versed and experienced of us such as Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dame Ann Salmond – to speak out. The very voices that Trotter wants to tap down, including his criticism of Sir Palmer for his piece in Newsroom:

Lurching towards constitutional impropriety

Second – our human world is tainted with the attribution of divisions – and the strongest, most persistent, and detrimental is that of wealth and probably gender.

It is a fact that most of us cannot access the mansions and spaceships that the richest of us do. It is a fact that most of us don’t have access to a few spare billions or own 10 properties around the world with servicing costs of millions of dollars a year.

It is a fact that most of us aren’t like Elon Musk whose father apparently dabbled in emerald mines in Africa or others in NZ who amassed wealth through privatisation here.

Even those lowest on the wealth totem pole, such as NZ’s illustrious PM Chris Luxon, had 7 mortgage free properties, including a family home worth about $8mn. He’s now sold a few and is no doubt landing on better ‘investment opportunities’ – anyone know any coming up?

It is a fact that the poorest of us have to work three jobs, or drop out or dial back studies to look after and help with bills. It’s a fact the poor’s access and scope of business opportunities is mininscule compared to the well-heeled with historical access to capital and trust funds.

It is the poorer of us that are unable to buy our way into the best private schools and universities, and are excluded from coddled, elite networks or offered opportunities by world class employers. And it is those of us on the lower end that are unable to donate millions and billions to politicians of our preference and stripe.

It is our gender, or perhaps our sexuality, that makes us a target for people like Brian Tamaki and Winston Peters – that tells us we are lesser beings for our personal choices and don’t deserve the same opportunities.

Or that we cannot make a choice for our bodies because we are female and we are shepherded to give birth, even if the life of that unborn child will be predicated on the very poverty and lack of opportunity those who demand I give birth are most responsible for.

Human rights are inalienable, and if we want to have a truly equal and “colour blind” government and society, the first thing we must do is enact a “class and wealth” blind society.

i.e. if those who profess and argue for human rights as the basis for their argument here – should ensure their first order of duty is to the economic and social well-being of the people – because that is where true wealth and equality will render the most benefit to the majority.

Yet it is ACT most ironically who are most supportive of class distinction – enacting laws to make it cheaper to hire qualified early childhood educators, bashing teachers unions and offering hundreds of millions to private individuals, who are siding with Uber over the poorest and most disadvantaged workers, and who don’t seem to give a toss about the ever-present risk to Kiwi workers’ lives saying they don’t want to burden businesses.

Māori and other groups who are disadvantaged are low hanging fruit and inconsequential to property rights or access – including their so called elites.

Māori are an easy target because they are often poorer, are more prevalent in crime due to poverty and generations of trauma and abuse, and are easily scapegoated. NZ’s Royal Commission into Abuse in State & Faith Based Care found that over 1/3 of the abused were Māori – and many went on to find strength and structure in gangs.

John Key’s own Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckmann, definitively concluded that poverty and intergenerational trauma is a major reason for crime and it’s necessary to address the root causes – and not paper over the superficialities – if we are to truly rectify the issues. i.e. boot camps don’t work and harden criminals, incarcerating people doesn’t work and makes it more likely family members will enter a life of crime etc.

But they aren’t the reason the economy is sliding, people are stuck in jobs they don’t enjoy, or stress about bills or getting their kids onto the property ladder.

So why is this government – and supposed “left wing” commentator” – supporting a divisive, unnecessary, exorbitant and expensive waste of taxpayers money, & morally dubious & intellectually dishonest move in the hands of the populist David Seymour, who supports apparent lying?

I instead propose a referendum to ensure all people irrespective of wealth and gender be able to access all opportunities in all facets of life – including access to property. And that is genuine human rights.

This is the referendum that would tell us people like David Seymour and Chris Trotter are not full of indeterminable dung in the argument.

I look forward to the waterfront properties that we will all share irrespective of our class, and for transgendered individuals to have access to all walks of life without impediment. I look forward to entering the airline platinum lounges without care for the history of my payments because history doesn’t matter in this argument, right?

Equality is equality for all – irrespective of gender, ethnicity, income and wealth, correct?

Because only then – would this movement be true to its world – that human rights are inalienable to all of us in NZ – and the supposed “indiscriminatory access to opportunities and property” is not only a line they employ to rid our country of the respectful balance between Māori and Pakeha.

Finally, our society is predicated – necessarily – on human distinctions and judgement.

Context, nuance and healthy discernment is how teachers know how to approach different students. It’s how parents distinguish between the needs and proclivities of children – knowing when to give more or less. It’s why there are gendered wards and intensive care units. And why troubled kids might get more resources and attention. It’s why victim support exists and we have money for it – with no objection. It’s why cancer patients might use up more funding than others. And why mental health funds help some over others.

i.e. It would be disingenuous to say that we don’t have distinctions in our lives, and equity and equality need to stand by side if we are to face this world with honesty, courage and fairness.

And it’d be dishonest to say we should ignore historical context, as Trotter argues, because if that was the case, that’s a very big can of worms too.

49 comments on “Chris Trotter’s Arguments for the Treaty Principles Bill Are Flawed ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Kat 1
    18 October 2024 at 9:04 pm

    Dear old Trots….he likes flying kites…..keep an eye out as he is bound to come on anti Seymour, anti Act….in fact anti the entire coalition including Winston as soon as the wind changes, the political tide turns and the road that the electorate walks veers left……..

  2. SPC 2
    18 October 2024 at 10:12 pm

    While New Zealand does not have a written constitution, these principles, together with important statutes and documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi (the Treaty) and ancient English statutes such as the Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights 1688, form the constitution of New Zealand.

    Have we asked the UK to amend the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights 1688 yet?

    PS What sort of socialist opposes a CGT because people of their generation would not like it.

  3. Rodel 3
    18 October 2024 at 11:36 pm

    Used to likeTrotter but not so much now

    • tc 3.1
      19 October 2024 at 7:53 am

      Chris sings for his supper as part of the 'balanced' coverage, it's the main goal of the soapbox in granny IMO.

      Manufacturing consent kiwi styles……we all gotta serve somebody as Dyan sang, chris is no different.

    • Mountain Tui 3.2
      19 October 2024 at 10:11 am

      My longer piece shows how I got confused by his self proclaimed "leading left wing commentator" packaging at one point – but there's no doubt anymore.

      • tc 3.2.1
        19 October 2024 at 10:32 am

        Hey that's just innovative marketing and arguable as correct.

        IMO he is the heralds leading left wing commentator, if he looks left hard enough he'll see the centre in the distance with the rest of the opinionators granny hosts to his right.

        We've come a long way baby.

        • Mountain Tui 3.2.1.1
          19 October 2024 at 11:19 am

          He doesn't just write for the Herald, he writes for Newtalk ZB and Don Brash as well from what I've seen.

          A label doesn't make anyone what they are – and his values appear on the right side of politics in many important matters from what I'm seeing – but I do believe it could be convenient for him to use that title – and those that want to use him will find it convenient too.

          BTW on his article that I reference, I've taken the lightest comments only. The rest is not worth repeating for its extreme fallacies in my view.

  4. Dennis Frank 4
    19 October 2024 at 3:43 am

    The left in Aotearoa has always sought to differentiate itself from the right by recycling neo-colonialism differently. Those of us who see neo-colonialism as antiquated naturally view both sets of morons askance. Better to live in the 21st century instead!

    So, re pipsqueak's push-back against the treaty fundamentalists, much ado about nothing. Kat's probably right that Trotter's flying his rightist kite out of boredom with the left's ongoing incompetence, but I do agree with the above essayist that we have ample other things to focus on. The nats pursue their zealotry in belief that it will eventually work, whilst most Aotearoans are noticing that the economy continues to drift sideways. Ideology gets no traction whatsoever currently.

    Polarising comes naturally when everyone's locked into the mental straitjacket of democracy. The state requires an opposition to govt by legal definition, so players in the political game must conform to the control system even when they prefer an intelligent alternative. Thus Seymour's stance: treaty gives hegemony to those who believe in it.

    Just a state of mind, really. Dunno why it spooks him so. Small things fascinate small minds, I guess. Yet you can't dismiss a treaty when it operates as a de facto constitution, so the treaty stalwarts are in a sufficiently strong position to make pipsqueak seem just another Don Quixote. Hard to discern any scenario in which the Supreme Court would deem te tiriti merely foundational – ancient history.

    That's presumably why Seymour blusters: he assumes bluster gets traction in parliament, so a law change will up-end the status quo if his bluster works well. Back to the old monoculture. Academics ought to measure what proportion of our asians are dead keen to become second-class citizens – word of mouth often suggests they vote right more than left – but I expect our social scientists will be too lazy or plead under-funding.

    Anyway the polls suggest a status quo unchanged since the election a year ago. Still no sign of the strong opposition Hipkins promised. Luxon's increasingly evident complacency reflects that. Seymour's sideshow is useful in distracting everyone from the failure of neoliberalism so presumably they'll kick that can down the road awhile yet…

  5. Mike the Lefty 5
    19 October 2024 at 6:31 am

    Although I respect Trotter for his historical works in the past, I have to say he really does seem to have gone to the dark side now, like Michael Bassett enthusiastically did after the Rogernomics experiment on the human condition.

    • tWig 5.1
      19 October 2024 at 9:22 am

      Having kinda forgotten about Bassett, I (skim) read his politcal autobiography recently. It was a remarkable example of self-justification, with a huge helping of shit piled onto his cousin, Lange, and that evil woman who drew him away from the righteous path of demolishing NZs socialist legislation.

      His character flaws were blindingly apparent from his own words.

  6. Patricia Bremner 6
    19 October 2024 at 7:42 am

    Dennis, stop sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides. It makes it seem you have no strong positions on anything, which I know is not true.

    Trotter is like many who admired systems which are also failing, so he is in the common bind of becoming more conservative with age.

    Many appear to like to attach to seeming success and the "I'm sorted mantra" but even they can see our downward dive and tightening choices.

    This government is a black swan of Atlas thinking which is increasing inequities and promoting winners and losers. Andrew Bayly's outburst a little window into that thinking.

    Property owners against the rest.

    Some who thought they were property owners, have discovered they are mortgage or loan holders, which is fine in stable or improving times, but in a recession/depression is a slave maker.

    Further, Seymore wishes to review Te Tiriti /The treaty because it represents a stumbling block to privatisation. The rest is hyperbole.

    Those who come here to Aoteoroa NZ, should accept our Treaty agreements already in place, as part of their citizenship ceremony imo.

    Traditional owners and those with customary rights should not have those extinguished by sly trickery.

    Contracts between parties have been poorly treated by this government, i.e the ferries debacle. Let us not remove a working Treaty contract for untried political chicanery.

    • Dolomedes III 6.1
      19 October 2024 at 9:36 am

      “Trotter is like many who admired systems which are also failing”

      Trotter has long been a critic of some of NZ’s institutions. But like most sensible people, he recognizes the dangers posed by the undermining of equality before the law.

      "he is in the common bind of becoming more conservative with age."

      How strange it is than anyone arguing for equality before the law in NZ (or for free speech, or for keeping long-discredited vitalist ideas out of science classes, for that matter) is now described as a conservative or a right-winger.

      And what is your evidence that “Seymore wishes to review Te Tiriti /The treaty because it represents a stumbling block to privatisation”? Seymour makes no secret of his enthusiasm for privatization, but where is your evidence that’s his motivation for the treaty bill?

      • Mountain Tui 6.1.1
        19 October 2024 at 10:14 am

        Trotter's not arguing for human rights – the true definition of which is about dignity – he's arguing to renege contract law, and roll back Maori rights and judicial expert judgements.

        Ironically, he criticised Sir Geoffrey Palmer too – so ironic that a man of his stature sees fit to critique people of substance. YMMV

        • Dolomedes III 6.1.1.1
          19 October 2024 at 10:31 am

          No, human rights are not about "dignity". They are about protecting the individual from abuse by the state e.g. no arbitrary detention, the right to a fair trial, no torture, no "disappearing" of people.

          What exactly makes Palmer a person of substance, in your eyes? And why should he be immune from criticism?

          • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.1.1
            19 October 2024 at 11:00 am

            why should he be immune from criticism?

            Cos he's in a state of antiquated venerability? Palmer's lengthy diatribe amounted to a view that the govt are a bunch of marauding huns intent on committing offenses against propriety. I see them merely as rightists trying to get it right.

            The ACT policy on this matter is polarising and dangerous to civil order. Sir John Key was right to speak out against it.

            https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/23/geoffrey-palmer-lurching-towards-constitutional-impropriety/

            So Key got it right, Palmer says so, and Lux has persisted in telling everyone that the govt will withdraw support for the bill. Mentor & mentee accord.

            As to why Palmer is a person of substance, here's my guess. He became PM with a remarkable level of public support, which he eliminated within 18 months according to a comparative analysis I once read online. Apparently it was the largest switcheroo in kiwi political history. Such a substantial achievement makes him a person of substance, right?

            • Drowsy M. Kram 6.1.1.1.1.1
              19 October 2024 at 12:49 pm

              As to why Palmer is a person of substance, here's my guess.

              smiley Interesting guess Dennis – people of real substance can be hard to find, particularly when so few seem to measure up. At least you're having a go.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Palmer_(politician)

              • Dennis Frank …
                19 October 2024 at 1:03 pm

                I like his retrospective stance as expressed here from your link:

                "I thought the Government was doomed actually, and my wife was absolutely of that opinion. But I thought I had a duty to do it and to try and get as many of the reforms completed as possible. We did complete a fair number. The Reserve Bank Act went through, the Public Finance Act went through, the Bill of Rights Act went through. I particularly wanted the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, thank you very much… I was actually pretty pleased to get out at the end of 1990. I was quite happy to run through as PM and take the defeat, but if other people wanted to do it – be my guest!"

                So his sojourn as PM was a tour of duty. Fair enough. I was actually a fan of his at the time (despite rogernomics) since I thought he was about as good a pillar of the establishment as one could expect, and was baffled that he didn't have a clue how to be a political leader that folks respect. Academic posture, I guess. The crippling consequences thereof…

                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  19 October 2024 at 1:52 pm

                  …and was baffled that he [Palmer] didn't have a clue how to be a political leader that folks respect.

                  Imho, few people have much of a clue about being a political leader (let alone one that folks respect), particularly those that aspire to same.
                  I recognise that I don’t.

                  "The crippling consequences" of "academic posture."

                  Did you dodge a bullet there? wink

                  • Dennis Frank …
                    19 October 2024 at 2:16 pm

                    I dropped out half-way thro my degree & did the hippie thing, then dropped back in to finish the damn thing when it became obvious the alternative wasn't viable. So yeah, dodged various cultural bullets in- coming from different directions back then.

                    Re Palmer, in his situation one must bend to the will of the people to achieve such respect (not just ignore it). Empathy with the consequences of rogernomics would have got him there. Plus the provision of a positive alternative to the Nats – which he had the intellect to suss out but apparently didn't feel it was his mission.

                • DS …
                  21 October 2024 at 6:21 pm

                  IIRC, Palmer was also Prime Minister when Telecom was sold.

                  Fuck him.

          • Mountain Tui 6.1.1.1.2
            19 October 2024 at 11:14 am

            I'm using the UN Human Rights framework which is broad and speaks to my point above in the article – so thanks for the confirmation on that. I like it.

            As to Palmer and Trotter, I might just smile here.

          • weka 6.1.1.1.3
            19 October 2024 at 11:15 am

            No, human rights are not about "dignity". They are about protecting the individual from abuse by the state e.g. no arbitrary detention, the right to a fair trial, no torture, no "disappearing" of people.

            From the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

            Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

            …

            Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

            …

            Article 1

            All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

            https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

            and so on. Dignity is central to human rights.

      • tWig 6.1.2
        19 October 2024 at 10:37 am

        The evidence is in the policies against existing indigenous rights that the Atlas Network (to which ACT and Seymour are clearly linked via both funding and historical participation) support politically and financially in countries like Canada and Australia.

        The obvious aim of Atlas aim is to open resources protected under such rights to exploitation by international capital.

      • SPC 6.1.3
        19 October 2024 at 1:25 pm

        Trotter is just another old Pakeha of his age group and thus that class.

        35/36 OECD nations have a CGT, 24/36 some form of inheritance/estate tax and he makes no case for either. Nor a wealth tax.

        He is now more akin to Peters than one of the left.

        He was with Clark on public domain and now with the C of C on restricting iwi to customary claims to 5% of he coast-line.

        That he is also with settler majority vs iwi on the Treaty and also UNDRIP, should be no surprise.

        He and Peters/Seymour are assimilationists.

        Up north those of his ilk voted for little England, Brexit.

        • Dolomedes III 6.1.3.1
          19 October 2024 at 1:32 pm

          I'm never going to agree with Trotter on everything (especially when he seems to change his mind so often), and I agree we need a CGT.

          • Ed1 6.1.3.1.1
            20 October 2024 at 11:27 am

            We do tax capital gains through the Income Tax Act – the problem is the exemptions. The right would prefer a separate Capital Gains tax at a (low) flat rate, with the same exemptions.

  7. tWig 7
    19 October 2024 at 9:27 am

    Again why I think that citizenship and a single submission limit be placed on this bill, specifically, because it deals with the fundamental structure of NZ.

  8. Simbit 8
    19 October 2024 at 7:13 pm

    Tbh not that worried. Racists, among other flaws, do project their own fears including retribution from oppressed Peoples (you see this in US white supremacy). But also that fear has a basis in the fact Maori can and do intimidate little men like Mr. Trotter. Do people seriously think we will lie down and let our rights be taken from us without a fight?! If we have to go to the mattresses, so be it…

  9. feijoa 9
    19 October 2024 at 8:01 pm

    If we were ever going to have a thing called the Treaty principles bill, I would have thought it would need the following

    -Good faith negotiation between Crown and Maori, the treaty partners.

    – I would have thought the word Maori might appear. Instead, it is erased.

    -Outline exactly what is in the treaty. Seymour's bill bears no relation to the treaty.

    – Perhaps consult the years of expertise that is the Waitangi tribunal

    – The treaty was never about pakeha. They already had rights as British citizens.

    -One side cannot just rewrite what is essentially a contract.

    This bill fails to do so many things, so one has to wonder at Seymour's motives.

    I suspect the resources under Maori ownership with a collective ownership model, and definitely not for sale, sticks in his craw.

  10. Frog wants out of the pressure cooker 10
    19 October 2024 at 11:42 pm

    Where have you guys been?

    Trotter rolled over several years ago. Initially he just opposed anything vaguely transformational – predicting all manner of doom and warnings about provoking backlashes. Then he found a spine and abandoned all pretence, finding his new homes and better paycheques.

  11. DS 11
    21 October 2024 at 6:26 pm

    I've been tolerant of Trotter longer than most. I am, after all, a Class Leftist, who rolls my eyes at the stupidity of modern Identity Politics and the middle-class fetish of what passes for the Labour Party.

    But Trotter is an Auckland Boomer at this point, with all the culture war obsessions to match, and his cheerleading for Le Pen in France was just sickening.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.