Can Luxon actually lead?
And where will he lead us?
Using vehicles to slow down Auckland’s motorway traffic was a tactic used by the rural-based Groundswell protests, which succeeded at least in communicating discontent with the Ardern government. With a change of government, the gumboot’s now on the other foot, and a protest led by Te Pati Māori adopted that tactic, but with cars not tractors.
Luxon’s initial response was defensive and robotic: ‘we are focussed on outcomes [and] we need a turnaround’. Protestors argue, however, that Luxon’s government will worsen outcomes for Māori, and that his ‘turnaround’ heads backwards by undoing progress on Treaty partnerships and other matters. National’s repeal of the age-related ban on tobacco sales and of fair-pay agreements, for example, will adversely affect Māori disproportionately.
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer hit out at ‘a government that has insulted and upset at least 20 percent of the population’ – leaving open the question of how the other 80 percent were feeling. Her accusation that the government ‘is doing state-sponsored terrorism to undo everything that we’ve done to try and live equally’ lessened the credibility of some otherwise valid points.
National’s minister of Māori development, Tama Potaka, replied to the critics by saying that the new government would do a better job of helping to improve outcomes for Māori – and for others – by addressing economic problems and working with communities directly. And he revealed that there were ‘robust debates’ going on, presumably in National’s caucus.
Source: AI-generated on stablediffusionweb.com
It would be great if Mr Potaka’s assurances turn into realities, but it looks unlikely that conditions will improve for the worst-off New Zealanders under this National-led government. Last week’s protests, then, may be the beginning (or the resumption) of a longer social movement. And the accompanying polarisation may come to define Luxon’s time as prime minister. So how will he handle it?
Will Luxon choose to be a nation-builder or a nation-divider?
His government-formation negotiations have painted him into a political corner. Two minor parties, ACT and NZ First, have pushed him towards white-majority views about equality under the law and towards revising statutory meanings of ‘principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’.
The principles of ‘one law for all’ and universal human rights have historically aimed to prevent rulers and privileged minorities from abusing their powers and to hold them to account, and to ensure that all persons are protected by law. But the principle of special measures for indigenous peoples, in order to address or correct past injustices, is also valid and is backed by international legal conventions. The political imperative for the state as a whole is to find a balance, not to cancel one in favour of the other.
To get that balance right requires (especially at the moment) a kind of leadership that rises above partisanship and seeks to bring opposing groups together. In 1981, National Party PM Robert Muldoon used political polarisation about sport and apartheid to help him win the election that year. That worked for him, but it deeply divided the country.
It remains to be seen whether Luxon will take a similar pathway. Will he become a divisive or a uniting leader? It’s a choice that will define his legacy.
The new parliament is doing well so far to accommodate the differences. The swearing-in allowed individual members to express their cultural backgrounds, with many using English or reo Māori or other first languages to swear allegiance. The Māori Party MPs, from their seats, first swore an oath (of their own making) based on tikanga and on te Tiriti and then came forward, with a wero or a waiata, to swear the prescribed oath – although three of them deviated from the exact wording. The UK press reacted strongly to an apparent insult.
If some Maori MPs have difficulty swearing the prescribed oath of allegiance to the head of state then I wonder if King Charles III might meet them and re-establish the relationship. A visit by the King is rumoured for October. If the head of state can’t help, then it’s up to the head of government, Mr Luxon, to build a political bridge. The Speaker, or even the Privileges Committee, might look into whether those MPs who deviated from the prescribed wording of the oath should be required to have another go and get it right. MPs who refuse to swear allegiance to his Majesty are normally barred by Standing Orders from the debating chamber until they do.
TPM’s current online constitutional petition to remove the British monarch as head of state, if it were to go to a referendum, could be as politically inflammatory as ACT’s proposed referendum on Treaty principles.
Sinn Féin MPs elected in Northern Irish seats of the UK’s House of Commons run on a mandate of abstentionism, meaning that they don’t get sworn in and don’t take their seats – and they don’t get paid either. They refuse to swear allegiance to the King, maintaining that their constituents should be represented within the Republic of Ireland, not the United Kingdom. There are currently seven such abstainers. Sinn Féin’s main political objective is a united Ireland and their website is bilingual.
Should TPM MPs consider following their example?
Note on AI
I’ve made a point of using an AI-generated image above. It was quick and free, and saved me from breaching copyright or privacy rules. But there are genuine concerns about the effects of AI on political discourse. Will the internet become flooded with deep fakes that leave us unable to judge what’s authentic and what isn’t? And will malicious uses of AI-generated disinformation confound democratic debate? I don’t see any problem in principle with using AI-generated material, provided we’re transparent about it, so that readers/viewers can judge for themselves. People are developing tools like ‘watermarking’, for instance, to allow access to metadata on the provenance of images. We could get to a stage where content that lacks that transparency won’t be trusted, so the pressure will be on all media to provide it.
There are going to be winners and losers as the new govt refocuses on the majority. If mainstream media lose out along the way, I will think the govt is doing a good job.