The week Luxon lost his moral mandate to lead

Written By: mickysavage - Date published: 8:44 am, January 29th, 2024 - 30 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, david seymour, Politics, racism, Shane Jones, treaty settlements, winston peters - Tags:

I have tried to write this post for a week now. But each day things have become worse or better depending on your point of view.

Ratana last Wednesday was very interesting. It is normally a happy peaceful event. But this time there was clearly a great deal of anger amongst local Iwi.

The various coalition parties’ approach to the day showed a variety of responses.

One of the coalition parties responded to the invitation by publicly insulting the hosts.

Why would you be there? My understanding is a guy came out as a prophet of his own religious movement in the 1870s. And politicians feel a strange obligation to be there every year. I've never felt that.https://t.co/WCVYAK3fSj

— David Seymour (@dbseymour) January 24, 2024

The other minor party engaged in some over the top male testosterone driven behaviour after being welcomed onto the paepae but criticised because of the attacks on te Tiriti. Shane Jones and Winston Peters feigned grave offence at the criticism directed their way and Jones invited those who criticised him to a mono a mono a Waitangi.

He then responded to criticism of NZ First by referring to NZ First’s coalition agreement National and its reference to amending the Waitangj Tribunal’s legislation to “refocus the scope, purpose and nature of its inquiries back to the original intent of that legislation”. He has not specified how but the original legislation did not have the power to investigate historical grievances. Is this what he is referring to?

His comments were very defensive. Clearly NZ First does not want to support Act’s bill, at least now but it does not want to upset its redneck base. They are difficult contradictory goals it is trying to reconcile.

And his concerns about the Waitangi Tribunal legislation is hard to understand. In terms of the treaty one side has breached the terms egregiously, systematically and repeatedly. It has entered into a number of settlement arrangements with the wronged parties that restore some mana but don’t go close to actually returning those parties to their former position. Now the representatives of the party in breach accuse the other side of engaging in over reach. Really?

Being the self proclaimed best speaker of Te Reo in the country and then accusing Tangata Whenua of overreach takes a great deal of nerve.

He has also spoken out against activist judges. This is a bit funny as the Lands case in 1987, described by Justice Cooke who presided as “perhaps as important for the future of our country as any that has come before a New Zealand Court”, was presided over not only by Cooke but also Justices Bisson, Somers, Richardson and Casey. These were all heavyweight and traditionalist Judges and this was the case which showed first signs of deep judicial respect for the Treaty. Calling them activist shows a complete misunderstanding of our judiciary.

At Ratana Luxon also spoke. He read from prepared speech notes and came out with the normal set of platitudes.

Part of it sounded ok. Politik reported him as making these comments:

I believe society is at its strongest when we do just that; businesses, iwi, community groups and the Government, working with you, the hapū, the whānau, the families and individuals, can together achieve so much more than any of us can by ourselves.

As Ngāi Tahu reminded me just last week, no one knows their communities better than iwi.

So why wouldn’t we use the most effective local providers – iwi, or Māori, or community – to reach the people who most need our help so they have a shot at a better future.”

This all sounds very reasonable. But it is hard to reconcile with National’s attacks on Te Reo and it allowing Act’s Treaty Principles Bill to go to select committee.

Because Act’s Treaty Principles Bill will create a circus.

National and NZ First have both said earlier on that they would only support the bill to select committee. More recently their language has become more muted where they confirm support to elect committee but then are evasive about what happens after that.

Attempts to get Luxon to confirm that National will vote against the second reading of the Bill has resulted in him replying that National’s position is clear and then giving a description that suggests its position is anything but.

I would prefer full throated confirmation that National and NZ First will oppose the bill at the second reading stage no matter what. Right now there is the possibility that some sort of watered down yet awful version may get through.

Matthew Hooton has written this complete annihilation of National’s position.

He has accused National of failing to act in good faith with its treaty partner. National’s walk back of its former reasonably clear position on the bill appears to be related to the requirement of the Coalition agreement for the parties to act in good faith. It is a shame that Luxon does not consider that the Government’s obligation of acting in good faith to its treaty partner is as important as keeping Act happy.

Hooton came up with this zinger describing how Luxon had earned the title Te Pirīmia Whakakotahi i Ngā Iwi, the great unifier of the people. Māori have never been this united.

And the Bill is dangerous. Gordon Campbell in this post has a succinct summary about how the Bill would completely undermine te Tiriti if it was passed.

From his post:

Article One: “The New Zealand Government has the right to govern all New Zealanders.” This sounds innocuous. Yet by underlining the primacy of the elected government of the day, it leaves no residual room for co-governance or for a partnership between equals. In asserting the dominance of the government of the day, it subjugates all competing rights, and removes any sense that the concessions made by Māori to the Crown in 1840 and since, were conditional. The tino rangatiratanga rights of sovereignty enshrined in Te Tiriti are at risk of being extinguished.

In doing so, Article One expands the powers of an uncheckable Executive branch. New Zealand is already a fragile unicameral social democracy. Not much is entrenched behind a parliamentary super-majority. The Bill of Rights provisions for instance, can be readily over-ridden by the will of a Parliamentary majority.

In fact, Article One makes Te Tiriti ō Waitangi as flimsy and vulnerable to legislative over-ride as the Bill of Rights. Henceforth, Te Tiriti would merely have a “nice to observe” status, and no longer a “need to observe” status.

Article Two: “The New Zealand government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property. “ Again, this sounds innocuous. Yet by putting the land and property rights of all New Zealanders on the same legal footing, it would risk denying Māori the ability to claim compensation for prior confiscations, since current land ownership and property rights would be all on the same level playing field, legally speaking. I’m not sure how this would play out in practice, but until we do know more, a “proceed with extreme caution” approach would seem advisable.

Article Three: “All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties.” This enshrining of mono-cuturalism – we all have the same rights and duties – would erase all forms of Māori customary law. It would also mean that any affirmative action programme undertaken by any future government to address the socio-economic disadvantages confronting Māori (thanks to the legacies of colonialism) would be open to legal challenge.

Māori anger at the proposal is totally justified. Foisting potential changes on Māori via a bill seeking a referendum where Māori will be in the minority is as disrespectful as you can get.

National’s and NZ First’s passive opposition is deeply concerning. There is nothing stopping the select committee from changing the legislation into a slightly less damaging form in the interests of “compromise”. In the absence of a firm commitment to vote the legislation down this must be treated as a possibility.

And this shows how Luxon is completely out of his depth. A wiser leader who understood New Zealand history would realise the depth of opposition the bill would raise and would not have agreed to its being part of the coalition agreement.

And I cannot understand why he would have in a pre long weekend Friday afternoon news dump announce that he was making Seymour Associate Minister of Justice in charge of the Treaty Principles Bill. Appointing Seymour as the Government Spokesperson on this vile abomination of a Bill will heighten concern and opposition.

And the timing of his appointment is terrible. It was just in time for Seymour’s State of the Nation speech where he again had the chance to use his Ministerial amplifier to push the bill.

Act’s Bill should be contrasted to Act’s stance on the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. Back then it opposed the legislation and took the principled position that Māori property rights should be protected and that due process of law should be preserved. If this bill is passed both will be usurped. 2024 Act would have supported the Foreshore and Seabed legislation as long as it stripped out any recourse for Māori for loss of their customary rights.

This will get ugly. As was noted about the right wing attack on the Yes vote in Australia the attacks on the Treaty will be relentless, they will be very well funded and they will be dark.

And Māori and progressives oppose this. What else can us progressives do?

What is the motivation? How about this from an anonymous contributor on Reddit?

I mean I feel like this is exactly how Trump got in in the first place.

Makes a bunch of racist noise about building a wall. Half the population thinks it sounds great, the other thinks it’s an outrageously stupid grift and tells the other half how stupid and thoughtless and braindead you’d have to be to support it. Then they dig their heels in and stop listening to the people calling them idiots.

Add in support from Act’s sponsors and the motivation seems to be clear. Populist racist policy that will improve the standing of a small minor party and where is the downside?

For Luxon there is no upside.

As noted by Andrea Vance:

It’s bizarre to grant a coalition partner with just 8% of the vote the ability to rewrite the country’s founding document (without bothering to ask the other signatories), and thus ignite a destructive and ultimately pointless debate. But, that aside, the real question is just how the hell Christopher Luxon got himself into this mess?

We will have 6 months of Springbok Tour type dissent. And unless insanity prevails the proposal will be voted down but the country will be in a worse and more divided state.

Luxon just failed his first big test as Prime Minister. Hopefully the country will not be too damaged from it.

30 comments on “The week Luxon lost his moral mandate to lead ”

Comments are now closed

Bearded Git 1

29 January 2024 at 9:26 am

Great post Micky. Looks like a less than one term government.
- ianmac 1.1
  
  29 January 2024 at 9:41 am
  
  Trump may get back in because of the divisions that he created. (Polls indicate this.)
  
  Luxon may get back in because of the division that he helped create
George 2

29 January 2024 at 10:12 am

If Luxon was to fall over in some way over the next few years. Would that put Peters or Seymour in the drivers seat? (As deputies ) Or would a new PM come out of National? Asking for a friend.
- Anne 2.1
  
  29 January 2024 at 10:34 am
  
  It is a National-led government who have 38.5% of the overall vote as opposed to 15% (NZF and ACT together) so the new PM would be chosen by National. It is unlikely they would choose someone from another political party.
  
  Talking of percentages, the difference between the Nat/ACT vote (46.7%) and the Lab/Green vote (38.65) is only 8%. I leave out NZF because they chose pre-election to be unaligned.
  
  That gives Labour and the Greens together leverage when it comes to fighting this referendum proposal and all the awful consequences that will flow from it.
  
  From day one, Luxon showed he was, and never will be, prime ministerial material. To appoint an extreme right racist/fascist (take your pick) to be an Associate Justice minister in charge of Treaty negotiations says it all!
  - Anne 2.1.1
    
    29 January 2024 at 10:47 am
    
    Btw mickysavage, you've done it again. A very important post.
  - Kat 2.1.2
    
    29 January 2024 at 10:59 am
    
    "From day one, Luxon showed he was, and never will be, prime ministerial material"
    
    Spot on Anne, couldn't agree more. Do you remember that dear old National supporter with the blue rinsed hair back in 2020 saying on the 6pm news "I just wish Jacinda was leader of the National party"…..the irony being that if she was, Jacinda would most likely still be PM.
ianmac 3

29 January 2024 at 11:27 am

Well done Micky.
Mike the Lefty 4

29 January 2024 at 12:08 pm

We all knew deep down that this coalition government would be a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Luxon would be the poster boy, doing nothing and signifying nothing other than what his two junior partners, each of whom thinks he is God's gift to New Zealand, order him.

One can only imagine what kind of shady dealing went on in the coalition talks, almost none of which has been made public and will never be made public because decent non-conspiracy theorist New Zealanders would be pretty sick if they knew.

The only hope for this country is that Seymour and Peters' natural antipathy will gradually reassert itself and make life hell for Luxon so much that the coalition disintegrates and a snap election is called.
Michael 5

29 January 2024 at 12:20 pm

Still waiting for Labour to declare its hand. Does it have more to lose by alienating tangata whenua or racist pakeha? Of course, a principled position would be nice, but we cannot expect anything of the sort from neoliberal Labour.
- Drowsy M. Kram 5.1
  
  29 January 2024 at 3:51 pm
  
  Maxine Ronald: Why do we have to keep explaining the ethnicity gap?
  [25 June 2023]
  We know that ethnicity, by itself, is an independent risk factor for poor health outcomes.
  
  Co-governance explained and defined – by politicians [6 Oct 2023]
  
  Labour's recent history (5th/6th Labour(-led) govts) includes principled progressive policy (Closing the Gaps; Co-governance), followed by politically pragmatic dialing back in response to a conservative (status quo) and/or racist public backlash.
  
  I hope the Grahams in our parliament will prevail over the Brashs/Seymours.
  
  As Waitangi Day approaches, could we be facing Ōrewa all over again?
  [28 Jan 2024]
  At that time, efforts to lift Māori outcomes and achievement were bundled under the banner “Closing the Gaps”, and when Brash’s post-Ōrewa polls soared, says Tamihere, “that scared Clark and our leadership and they immediately scrapped programmes like Closing the Gaps, and turned us back into needs-based rather than targeting. The horses got spooked!”
  …
  At the same time as Brash was attacking Māori so-called privilege, Labour PM Helen Clark was proposing the Foreshore and Seabed legislation, which sought to restrict Māori claims to customary rights to the country’s coastline (and caused a huge Labour rift that eventually sparked the creation of the Māori Party).
  …
  [Doug] Graham says his interests have always been practical.
  
  “When we started with the settlement negotiations, neither Māori nor the Crown had much of an idea of what we were doing. And we sat down and said, ‘Look, let's try and work this out together and try and find something satisfactory to both sides.’
  
  “There are certain rights that Māori have and need to be respected. I think the vast majority of New Zealand would say the same thing. Māori are special. They were here. They have certain rights. Why are we getting excited about it? And letting them run their own affairs to some extent where they can – what's wrong with that?
  
  “If it works, let’s try it. It’s quite simple really.”
Psycho Milt 6

29 January 2024 at 12:23 pm

It's astonishing, really. Seymour's made no secret that he thinks the law should recognise no obligations of the govt specifically to Māori, he's put forward legislation to effect that via treaty "principles" that make no mention of Māori, he didn't bother consulting with them as treaty partner before putting that legislation forward, and yet he has legions of fanboys peddling his bullshit that it's just "clarifying" the principles and it's a "debate."

Luxon knows all this as well as we do – he called it (overly diplomatically, in my opinion) "divisive and unhelpful." Now he's not ruling out supporting "divisive and unhelpful" legislation into law. Top leadership, chief.
- SPC 6.1
  
  29 January 2024 at 6:04 pm
  
  He compares getting the bill through parliament to the euthanasia legislation – before the majority affirm it at a referendum.
  
  He basically wants to enable a majority to diminish the Treaty partner to assimilated status and otherwise block UNDRIP indigenous people status – which will create an issue for us internationally.
  
  A legal form of ethnic cleansing of an indigenous peoples rights and standing, without their consent.
  - Psycho Milt 6.1.1
    
    29 January 2024 at 7:10 pm
    
    "He basically wants to enable a majority to diminish the Treaty partner to assimilated status…"
    
    I think this is it in a nutshell. His (my, for that matter) ethnic group is the overwhelming majority. Would he be so keen on a "debate" and a referendum if Māori were the overwhelming majority? Would he fuck.
    - Tom 6.1.1.1
      
      31 January 2024 at 7:35 pm
      
      I welcome the debate. Nothing wrong with that, and the nation want it. If it were put before the people today. Acts bill would pass. My view is that this shoud happen. The courts ‘interpretation’ of the treaty needs to be thrown out, and the meaning applied word for word. That is what ACT and a majority of people want. There is no way that a court should really have been able to determine or interpret what the people signing this were thinking at the time and somehow make rules and laws around an interpretation. Like any other contractual document, it is what it is, and it’s meaning should be what it says, not someone’s interpretation. My view is this will happen as a result of ACTs proposed bill, and if it does not, the a citizens initiated referendum will materialise. Either way, I believe a referendum will come to pass on this issue.
- georgecom 6.2
  
  29 January 2024 at 8:29 pm
  
  things like governance and a gradual shift over time toward more maori power and decision making is a threat to the political/economic structure ACT and their historical supporters, eg Brash. their halcyon days were premised on a market approach that locked in white older male power and privilege. Equality and all ACTs weasel words, once all is said and done, for them equates to a free market that privileges those with power and money.
- Robert Guyton 6.3
  
  29 January 2024 at 9:02 pm
  
  "… and yet he has legions of fanboys peddling his bullshit that it's just "clarifying" the principles and it's a "debate.""
  
  QFT – thanks, PM.
roblogic 7

29 January 2024 at 12:59 pm

Seymour's argument is founded upon dishonesty and bad faith; he's following the playbook established by the NO vote in the Voice to Australia referendum. Backed by the Atlas Network and wealthy Australian elites to spread misinformation and fear.

The outcome of this discourse is a bitter and divided society that's distracted by race issues and law & order; making it easier for elites to pilfer natural resources and steal public assets.

There are some very disturbing racist fuckwits on social media who are agitating for civil war and can't wait to start killing
- Robert Guyton 7.1
  
  29 January 2024 at 9:05 pm
  
  "Seymour's argument is founded upon dishonesty and bad faith; he's following the playbook established by the NO vote in the Voice to Australia referendum. Backed by the Atlas Network and wealthy Australian elites to spread misinformation and fear. "
  
  Perfect summation, roblogic, imo.
Adrian 8

29 January 2024 at 1:55 pm

Don’t like their chances Robologic, I believe a considerable number of young Māori have done their time in the Special Forces and know how to go about their business quietly and efficiently.
Tony Veitch 9

29 January 2024 at 3:27 pm

“Because Luxon is such a weak Prime Minister, he is being railroaded by a far smarter David Seymour and out played by a far more cunning Winston.”

Bomber sums up the situation quite nicely!

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2024/01/29/mediawatch-when-even-heather-du-plessis-allan-doesnt-buy-nationals-anti-maori-race-baiting/
Tony Veitch 10

29 January 2024 at 4:01 pm

"For the ACT leader, the campaigning last year did not end – it was but a prelude.

"Seymour understands that the stability of the current coalition government is only a veneer. Quietly simmering not far beneath the surface is an unresolved volatility as the leaders of ACT and NZ First struggle for pre-eminence as the Major Partner to National."

Frank has got the measure of the CoC! And he’s right, Seymour is still campaigning – hence the State of the Nation Speech!

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGwJvjrNGsjmMwhtNpZKFNtRRhW
George 11

29 January 2024 at 4:36 pm

Seymour is warming everyone up for a Brexit type roadshow to promote a republic…he wants to be El Presidente!
- Anne 11.1
  
  29 January 2024 at 5:27 pm
  
  Wouldn't surprise me. He is after all a narcissistic sociopath who is following the Trump playbook.
Patricia Bremner 12

29 January 2024 at 6:33 pm

We need a list of businesses which supported Act and National, and to some degree NZ First. We need to avoid business with them where we can. It will send a message.

Commercial Landlords are pressuring people to return to their buildings. Resist where you can, especially if they are supporters of the right.

Approach your local iwi, ask how you can make a difference in this fight. We can make a difference that David and mates may not expect… Oh and do what King Te Huetia suggested. Carry ourselves in a spirit of "Manaaki i te katoa."
- Kat 12.1
  
  29 January 2024 at 8:14 pm
  
  Good idea Patricia, maybe John Campbell could do some investigative journalism and expose the rotten apples floating in the barrel…….or maybe they have sunk to the bottom and the barrel needs draining…..
  
  Just realised how Trumpian that sounds
SPC 13

29 January 2024 at 6:48 pm

Do not ignore the NZF support for a review of the Waitangi Tribunal and more.

The Treaty principles bill might just become the diversion, to gather legitimacy for other moves by National and NZ First.

What other commitments did NZ First get on Māori policy in its coalition agreement with National?

Remove co-governance from the delivery of public services; issue a Cabinet Office circular to all central government organisations that it is the Government’s expectation that public services should be prioritised on the basis of need, not race; restore the right to local referendum on the establishment or ongoing use of Māori wards, including requiring a referendum on any wards established without referendum at the next Local Body elections; stop all work on He Puapua; confirm that the coalition Government does not recognise the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as having any binding legal effect on New Zealand; amend section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area Act to make clear Parliament’s original intent, in light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Whakatohea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) and Ors vs Te Kahui and Whakatohea Maori Trust Board and Ors [2023] NZCA 504; conduct a comprehensive review of all legislation (except when it is related to, or substantive to, existing full and final Treaty settlements) that includes “the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and replace all such references with specific words relating to the relevance and application of the Treaty, or repeal the references.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/waitangi-tribunal-review-changing-role-set-to-come-under-scrutiny-by-new-government/GJ3OXYYUOZGFLGXRBLQYFY4NUM/
roblogic 14

30 January 2024 at 1:54 am

The mandate of National and Act is especially questionable given their murky millionaire backers and servitude to big business ahead of democracy.

And they have the temerity to call co-governance undemocratic.

What is profoundly undemocratic is to spout misleading nonsense and do back room deals with tobacco companies that were nowhere published in the policies or ad campaigns. I expect it's just the start of a widespread campaign to gaslight the people of Aotearoa while slashing and burning and selling out.
Frank Mann 15

30 January 2024 at 7:59 am

Let's not kid ourselves, Luxton would love the race debate distraction, the perfect dead-cat strategy.

[Please don’t change user names and from now on stick to the other approved name here, thanks – Incognito]
- Incognito 15.1
  
  30 January 2024 at 8:51 am
  
  Mod note
observer 16

30 January 2024 at 11:21 am

Simon Wilson's column in the Herald is paywalled (I've read the print version) but it's worth a read.

In short, he writes an alternative Luxon speech that a National PM could deliver.

In the end, it is the National party and its wiser heads that will need to rein Luxon in.