Flaws in Chris Trotter’s Defence of the Treaty Principles Bill

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.