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.
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.
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.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress