The influence of global oligarchs cannot be understated, even in our little corner of the world.
The recommendations from recent inquiry into controls on elections (especially donation limits) would provide a counter to the oligarchs. Which may be why Mr Goldsmith has buried the report.
Not as easy to buy an election in NZ as, say, the US. Of course money is important - why else would parties have fundraisers? - but voters remain motivated by one important issue: how is the government affecting me? If voters think that Labour will make things better for them as individuals or families then they’ll change their vote. Currently voters are giving National the benefit of the doubt. Act is attracting people who focus on race relations (of a type) and NZF its usual collection of grumpy oldies. Labour is between that rock and the hard place - will voters ignore Willie out shouting the Maori Party and concentrate on taxing the rich? Not even Blondini could walk that tightrope.
To a minor degree, election buying has already happened here, and it's all homegrown. The last NZ needs is foreign oligarchs like Musk adding to the mix.
So we are entering bad times for the left? I think it goes deeper than that. The times are not that great for the more moderate "centre right" either. They also have to "hold their noses" while contemplating collaboration with the likes of Trump, Farage and the AFD. Labour's win in the British elections says it all. Only a 60% turnout and the "landslide" winner gets one third of that 60%. Do the math. The public can see that this is not democracy. Never mind Elon Musk. The global (and the domestic New Zealand) picture is of a political system that consistently delivers policies people don't like through parties and politicians who they regard with disdain. Any one with an ounce of sense or integrity would be trying to find the systemic causes of this phenomena. However the politicians and the media, who are best placed to do something about it, have no interest in reforming the system which serves them pretty well. The "open list" that you mention in relation to Iceland would tend to make the system a little bit more democratic (that is, restore a small measure of influence to the people) but it is not nearly enough. The only thing that will save the nations of west is the open ballot, continuous election, and non-uniform self-determined constituencies. The whole package is necessary to the restoration of functional democracy across the western world.
Thank you, Geoff. That's very thought-provoking! The ways in which leaders get elected, and the ways in which policies get authorised are critical issues. It's all up for debate. Cheers.
I think identity politics is the hill Labour will end up dying on, as they ‘hold their noses’ against the great unwashed.
I think it is fortunate that Maori sovereignty activists are forging ahead with their own brand, to some extent separate from this. I think they have to overcome two challenges to successfully sell their ideas to voters.
Partnership is a dead albatross.
To the great unwashed this smells even worse than the great unwashed do to Labour.
Identitarian-style victimhood.
This comes across as a whinge, not a reason for support. Maori are the people indigenous to New Zealand. There might be substantial value to us all in te ao Maori if we were able to engage in a process together, in a positive not antagonistic manner.
Sometimes some politicians see antagonism as the way to gain support. And identifying with (or as) a victim or underdog can have a powerful effect at times.
"Maori sovereignty" was a phrase popularized forty years ago by Donna Awatere, before she went on to become a business person and ACT party list member of parliament. It is a problematic concept, and that may be a reason why it has been superseded by rangatiratanga, which relates to a clearly defined system of governance that is not race-based or racially exclusive even though its origins are in Maoritanga. Those who talk and live rangatiratanga do not need the support of others (including the colonialist state) though they welcome engagement from any quarter. So the trick for Pakeha and others is to discover what rangatiratanga is all about, and how it can be the solution to many of the problems that Aotearoa is facing today.
I have personal experience of being on an unemployment benefit, so I can speak to this question. Discontinuous employment has been a problem for many of our people. In my case, I was blacklisted for employment by the New Zealand government and in order to provide for my family went on an unemployment benefit. I and others from my village in a similar situation worked our mara kai, collected windfall from orchards, cut firewood and so on in order to keep our whanau fed and warm. Frankly, none of us liked being "on the dole". We would rather have lived entirely by our own labour. But as things were at that time we would have had difficulty living in society without a cash income. Now our situation is improved, and we have resources that would allow us to survive well enough even in the absence of welfare benefits. However there are some costs (such as land rates) which would become a matter of contention if we were to be deprived of all state benefits. So the short answer is, we could survive without welfare benefits, but if the state made a decision to deprive our people of those benefits then the relationship between the state and our communities would necessarily become more antagonistic than it has been in the recent past.
I for one would be solidly supportive of finding a way that decision making of Maori for … stuff … was made by the people concerned. Maybe there is a way forward with rangatiratanga.
How can we as a community, or multitude of communities, get to function in harmony together on these islands of ours down at the bottom left hand corner of the Pacific. There is a dominant pakeha culture, there is te ao Maori, there are multiple Asian communities, there are Indians from the subcontinent and also from Fiji, there are Pacifica … We are us, and we are different than say, Aussies or Americans. It doesn’t make any sense imo to make us all the same.
Maori are descendants of the indigenous people of New Zealand. This is important and we will all be better off imo if this is respectfully valued. Can we find a way forward together, all groups of us I mean, respecting differences? With the Treaty as a symbol? I hope so.
I am from the right myself. I voted ACT. I am all in favour of finding ways of having difference, of valuing different things but nevertheless rubbing along together without banging heads all the time.
My personal view is that the Treaty can be a symbol that we all share. Two peoples signed it with a vision in 1840 as to how they might find a way ahead together. Since then there has been a lot of history, including shameful breaches, but also a 50-year process to directly engage with these.
I’m an engineer not a politico, so I hope I haven’t used words that wind you up. That is not my intention at all.
I think David Lange was right, back in 2000, when he said something like we can have democracy or separatist sovereignty, but not both. I suspect the way forwards is finding how to not butt heads with the word ‘sovereignty’, and instead find out together what practical structures might be possible. The reason I said ‘stuff’, above, is because I don’t know what this might look like. I’m intrigued by what rangatiratanga might mean today though.
Kia ora John. You are right, "separatist sovereignty" is not a solution, and we do need to be "rubbing along together without banging heads all the time". However in order to achieve that we need to look carefully at how we have got to the present state, and understand the dangers inherent in our present course. Until quite late last century it was relatively simple. What had been a land inhabited by Maori, speaking te reo Maori, and living according to the norms of Maori culture, became a land largely inhabited by English people with a spattering of other ethnicities. The British in New Zealand still identified as British. On that basis they took us into the Boer War, two World Wars and a number of smaller wars designed to shore up the collapsing British empire. In the course of those conflicts the New Zealand state came up against the previously unforeseen problem of what to do about Maori and what were called "enemy aliens" living within New Zealand. The Maori issue was resolved by allowing those Maori who wanted to fight on the British side to do so, and ignoring those who chose not to fight. A few hundred "enemy aliens" were interned for the duration. So far so good. But now in 2025 as well as Maori and British people we have large numbers of Chinese, Indian, Australian, American, South African, Filipino, Pasifika and other peoples. The state lauds "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and actively encourages these other peoples to retain links to their home countries, just as the British have. And just as with the British, this brings the risk that the domestic and foreign conflicts of other countries will be played out in our own country, or worse, that New Zealand as a whole will be drawn into those conflicts. At the moment in New Zealand, Indians get along with Chinese, Indian Sikhs get along with Indian Hindus, Taiwan Chinese get along with Mainland Chinese, Sri Lanka Muslims live and let live with Sri Lanka Tamils, American Republicans get on with American Democrats and so on. But it would be folly to suppose that this will always be the case and New Zealand's potential for getting entangled in more foreign wars is very real. My argument is that for the sake of our own future well-being we need to step back from "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and to advance in the direction of a single culture and a common national identity. That culture and national identity can only be based on Maoritanga. Why not "Anglo" culture, given that English is the dominant language and people of English descent are still a majority of the population? Because Maori are no longer willing to tolerate British social hegemony, because other ethnic groups would not welcome it, and because a return to British monoculturalism would cement New Zealand into a partnership of Anglophone states that are preparing for a global war to preserve their historical dominance over the rest of the world.
It is not just that "Maori were here first". It is because Maoritanga is rooted in the land and has positive communal values that will stand us in good stead through the present century and into the next.
"New Zealand" will not be transformed into "Aotearoa" overnight. It is not a change that can be rushed or forced. But we all need to have a clear understanding of the consequences of the various alternative futures for our nation.
I like the way you think. I can’t put my finger on it exactly, and I think we have different ideas about solutions, but I find your proposals reasoned and positive.
I remember how we used to all stand up at the beginning of movies when they played God Save the Queen. It was a big deal somehow when we all stopped doing that, and then the theatres stopped playing the anthem. There would be a reel of Movietone News next, that I think was black and white and started with a kookaburra laughing. It was kind of ‘empire news’ - although I might be mis-remembering this. When pakeha of my parent’s generation talked about ‘home’ they meant the UK. The ‘big OE’ was invariably to London.
That was a while ago now, the ‘60s and before. It finished in the ‘70s. We have changed as a country, all of us. ‘Because Maori are no longer willing to tolerate British social hegemony’ <- this is a big change. I welcome te ao Maori stepping forward into the limelight.
I’m pakeha myself. Both my grandfathers fought in WW1. Both were wounded. One was shot in the bum and gassed. The other had one of his balls shot off at the Somme (only one thank Christ) and was invalided out after brutal fighting with shell shock. I read a report written by his CO saying they ‘took no prisoners’ in that action. The other grandfather kept his family fed during the depression by working building bridges in the back blocks, and then went on to WW2. I marched against Vietnam up Queen St in Auckland. I don’t see a lot of mileage in wars.
I like that our Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese compatriots didn’t fight it out in our streets, or the Serbs and Croats, when their relatives were fighting it out overseas, or Palestinians and Jews now for that matter.
We are distinct in these islands. People come here as migrants. (Maori came here 800 years ago, give or take. Mine came 200 years ago.) After a generation or two they are no longer of the culture their forebears came from, they have our accents. They bring things that adds to our ‘us’. For myself, I like that there is a Diwali and a Chinese New Year.
‘My argument is that for the sake of our own future well-being we need to step back from "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and to advance in the direction of a single culture and a common national identity.’
I think hard-edged “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are an identitarian fad, a generational thing. It will pass as those folks get new bees in their bonnets. It won’t switch off overnight. In the way of these things, we will be to some extent changed.
‘That culture and national identity can only be based on Maoritanga.’
Yeah, well, maybe? I wouldn’t fight against this, but it would need to be sold to me. There is an egalitarian edge here in NZ; we are not that disposed to having stuff shoved at us. But this is why I said that I am curious about rangatiratanga and what it might mean here, now.
I wouldn’t put money on it though. My take is that we do have a culture here, and that it is uniquely ours. I don’t think it is anglo (although one of my grandfathers was anglophile). I think it has strong legs that will see us through the present silly, shallow and divisive attempts at social engineering.
The real deal, that actually matters, is that we keep the conversation going imo.
Maori are not strangers to diversity. Every iwi is different, they each have their own whakapapa, tikanga, and reo. The concept and practice of kotahitanga brings these separate iwi together as nga iwi Maori.
The advocates of diversity in the colonialist system seem to lack an exact equivalent to kotahitanga. The argument from "Hobson's Pledge" that "We are all one people" is rightly or wrongly construed to mean "You have no separate identity" (which immediately puts Maori backs up) whereas the notion of kotahitanga makes it clear that iwi and all ethnic identities are accepted, respected and valued. Diversity on its own however is not a sufficient basis for a stable, productive and harmonious society. We also need to share common values and recognise a well-defined common interest. The concept of kotahitanga has evolved over nearly two centuries to fulfill precisely that purpose. It is more nuanced and more relevant to our situation than anything that I have heard from the colonialist side. So why not adopt it as a national principle? And along with it the principles of mana motuhake, and rangatiratanga?
Kotahitanga has been a long time in the making, and it continues to evolve. It is not something that can be forced on anyone. As you say, "we are not disposed to having stuff shoved at us". No one is. As you say, there is a good conversation to be had, and we can be optimistic for the future.
There might be aligned concepts here with pluralistic liberal democracy. Not the same, but having similar flavours.
From my brief reading, kotahitanga is about ways of finding unity of purpose, together, alignment amongst disparate groups. (Forgive me if I am way off.) This is an effortful process and doesn’t just happen.
It looks to me to share some of the same intentions as a ‘pluralistic democracy’, where this is about different groups working out how to be together as a single polity, pulling together, without killing each other. No question that there was plenty of historical killing in Europe while (and after) these patterns were being worked out.
I doubt that either kotahitanga or pluralistic democracies work in a mechanical, guaranteed way. Their value though is that they can work at all.
Mana motuhake and rangatiratanga align (again, forgive me if I am wrong, I don’t mean to offend and I acknowledge my understanding is as deep as a puddle) with something I think we hold dear together. Self-determination. The importance of autonomy and the right to exercise authority over our own affairs. Advocacy for the political empowerment of our communities to make decisions that affect our lives and governance.
I think this resonates with who all of us are in NZ. Okay, I might be drawing too long a bow, but we are not a culture of forelock tuggers. Various of my forebears, and many others, came here precisely to get away from a stifling class system.
The valuable conversations for our community are to see where the alignments lie, and where the differences are. With good will.
In this century New Zealand has had four real Prime Ministers and a bunch of incidental ones. Two of the real Prime Ministers, John Key and Christopher Luxon, have been wealthy persons. The other two, Helen Clarke and Jacinda Ardern, have been professional politicians. Not in the sense that every member of parliament is a professional politician but in the sense of a profession for which they have trained and in which they have spent virtually their entire careers.
The problem with persons of wealth is self-evident. They are not us. However, they claim to know how the system works, they offer their wealth as evidence of that knowledge, and so they seem to be a safe enough bet to many, even though we assume that their policies will tend towards the interests of people like themselves, that is, other people of wealth.
The trouble with the professional politicians is that in order to have any sort of career in politics they need to ingratiate themselves with the media, and, you guessed it, persons of wealth and power. So whether directly or indirectly we get rule of the wealthy and powerful. Elon Musk has managed to shortcut the whole connection between wealth and political power in the US, but so far in New Zealand we are managing to keep up appearances. The point is that not so many people care what Musk does because they apply the same logic to him as they do to Key and Luxon. Musk is successful. He owns a big chunk of the US economy and he has billions in assets. Therefore he must know stuff. Therefore people expect that he will manage the state and the economy well. The fact that he has not been elected doesn't matter a damn. People think they may as well have the organ grinder calling the tune. The monkeys (sorry Helen, Jacinda and Kamala) can stay home or hive off to some ivory tower where there is room for them.
Our present model of democracy cannot offer any alternatives apart from persons of wealth and professional politicians. It is not a matter of choice. The system is simply incapable of anything else. To compound matters, the central concern of politics has become economic management. Apart from making war and keeping a lid on things domestically, that is the sole role of government in neo-liberal ideology. In any case, by design New Zealand governments have been left with sweet all to manage apart from the economy, and most economic management is outsourced to Treasury and the Reserve Bank. To make a case for being relevant and successful in their own right, the professional politicians in particular find it helpful to join in a war every so often. As often as not they fail in that enterprise, and so we go on.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the system gives only two classes of people access to power. That is the way it will always be under the present system of government and that is why structural reform of the political system is imperative.
Unless you’re including Acting PMs the bunch is actually two, English and Hipkins. What a pity English, deprived by Peters, didn’t get the chance to make a difference.
I'm middle of the road, not a true red "Labour man" but never? I dont agree. There's too many variables, and this IS politics!. The coalition could collapse, and some new Labour leader could do a "Jacinda" . The TPM performance will possibly become more moderate, if the country turns against them. Theres a lot of water to go under this bridge in the 6 month hearing. OTOH, observe the world heading to the right with politics of hatred and resentment.
Are you saying that the politics of hatred and resentment is coming from the left, and driving people to the right wing of politics ? I could agree with that. Remember Posie Parker in Albert park.
No, I didn't say that. There's hatred, resentment and intolerance on left and right. The world seems to have lost its middle ground and this more extreme polarization will see a rocky road for some time. Putin started off reasonable, and now will probably ruin the Ukraine, (and maybe other ex-Soviet states)aided by the obscene oaf and his loyal money-crazed lieutenants . Then let's mull over about Korea, and Chinas ambitions towards Taiwan and the Pacific. I suspect we've seen the best of times.
The middle ground in many nations has been chipped away over the last several decades. Basic needs like housing and education have been turned into monopolised commodities, jobs get offshored or devalued, while those profiting from the above have effectively scapegoated the vulnerable. Angry voters start voting for political bomb-throwers and body counts start to mount.
Labour's problems run much deeper than policy... that doesn't win elections & itself policy isn't going to bring them back. For years a lack of front-facing and strategic talent has eaten away at the party.
Past positioning decisions around how they portray themselves to voters on both sides have painted them into a corner. Eg. over the years the way Labour has managed their appeal with the Māori vote has been pretty arrogant & one-dimensional. They never built a strategy for dealing with TPM. Its basically been don't talk bout TPM and pretend they're a non-player.
Labour's current non-strategy is a recipe for disaster. Leaning harder left with policy makes them look weak if they're not perceived to be in control of the left. Labour needs an emotive messaging strategy that can crush TPM. Interestingly a by product of this would be shoring up the centrist swing vote, putting them in a very strong position.
Look at the current Labour faces... There is no one who could credibly front that message. Making matters worse is that the party is lacking the expertise to build that narrative and execute it organically. They would very likely botch it & manage to alienate Māori. There are some similarities to how the democrats didn't have the awareness to deal with the progressive perceptions that were crippling them.
Working with politicians in a campaign setting you come to realize they don't know politics more than the average person - very surface level. A party has to have the infrastructure to support them. The bloated traditional parties are the last to evolve strategy. They're mostly carried by their brands and swing of the political pendulum... that includes National.
Dealing with party factions, energizing & mobilizing new voters, TPM have a big leg up on Labour here. This idea that "TPM is on the left so are an ally to Labour" is very much the wrong takeaway in the bigger picture... that lack of foresight & planning is what put them in this situation.
Excellent comments, thanks Paul. A tax policy won't win or lose the election. And Labour is at risk of being led by two smaller parties, to an extent even greater than the Nats are at present. You're right that Labour lacks a leader to pull it off, and, even if they had one, that person would probably be held back from within. There are some things they can do about it, but they seem to lack self-critical faculties – rather like Dem's at present. Cheers.
An excellent summary and likely prediction, thanks Grant. (Partly) left unsaid by you is the growing public skepticism of so-called "anthropologic climate change".
Some folks are finally beginning to realise that this ideology without foundation) is adding huge costs that have been behind inflation. I quote: "...The likely next prime minister of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, is an articulate and experienced politician who’s campaigning on the cost of living and on rolling back carbon pricing..." You correctly point out excessive immigration as another.
I hope that New Zealand will come to our collective senses and push back against the politicisation of the natural phenomenon that is climate change.
The influence of global oligarchs cannot be understated, even in our little corner of the world.
The recommendations from recent inquiry into controls on elections (especially donation limits) would provide a counter to the oligarchs. Which may be why Mr Goldsmith has buried the report.
Not as easy to buy an election in NZ as, say, the US. Of course money is important - why else would parties have fundraisers? - but voters remain motivated by one important issue: how is the government affecting me? If voters think that Labour will make things better for them as individuals or families then they’ll change their vote. Currently voters are giving National the benefit of the doubt. Act is attracting people who focus on race relations (of a type) and NZF its usual collection of grumpy oldies. Labour is between that rock and the hard place - will voters ignore Willie out shouting the Maori Party and concentrate on taxing the rich? Not even Blondini could walk that tightrope.
It depends on what “buy off” refers to. Have you looked at the lead up to the US election re: bots?
It’s definitely not unreasonable to believe it has happened, or could happen here.
To a minor degree, election buying has already happened here, and it's all homegrown. The last NZ needs is foreign oligarchs like Musk adding to the mix.
True. I think donation caps are called for. As it stands now, overseas donors can't give more than $50.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM1868315.html
Max's point is supported by the failures of millionaires Gareth Morgan, Colin Craig and Kim Dotcom to win any seats at all.
All of them tried to form new parties, instead of donating to existing ones.
No mention of 'net zero' yet I suggest climate policies are at the heart of the so called 'populist ' revolt.
Good point, Mike. I could have added climate to the discussion.
This cartoon perfectly sums up the oligarchs' successful divide-and-rule strategy:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2656977204337311&_rdr
So we are entering bad times for the left? I think it goes deeper than that. The times are not that great for the more moderate "centre right" either. They also have to "hold their noses" while contemplating collaboration with the likes of Trump, Farage and the AFD. Labour's win in the British elections says it all. Only a 60% turnout and the "landslide" winner gets one third of that 60%. Do the math. The public can see that this is not democracy. Never mind Elon Musk. The global (and the domestic New Zealand) picture is of a political system that consistently delivers policies people don't like through parties and politicians who they regard with disdain. Any one with an ounce of sense or integrity would be trying to find the systemic causes of this phenomena. However the politicians and the media, who are best placed to do something about it, have no interest in reforming the system which serves them pretty well. The "open list" that you mention in relation to Iceland would tend to make the system a little bit more democratic (that is, restore a small measure of influence to the people) but it is not nearly enough. The only thing that will save the nations of west is the open ballot, continuous election, and non-uniform self-determined constituencies. The whole package is necessary to the restoration of functional democracy across the western world.
Thank you, Geoff. That's very thought-provoking! The ways in which leaders get elected, and the ways in which policies get authorised are critical issues. It's all up for debate. Cheers.
I think identity politics is the hill Labour will end up dying on, as they ‘hold their noses’ against the great unwashed.
I think it is fortunate that Maori sovereignty activists are forging ahead with their own brand, to some extent separate from this. I think they have to overcome two challenges to successfully sell their ideas to voters.
Partnership is a dead albatross.
To the great unwashed this smells even worse than the great unwashed do to Labour.
Identitarian-style victimhood.
This comes across as a whinge, not a reason for support. Maori are the people indigenous to New Zealand. There might be substantial value to us all in te ao Maori if we were able to engage in a process together, in a positive not antagonistic manner.
Sometimes some politicians see antagonism as the way to gain support. And identifying with (or as) a victim or underdog can have a powerful effect at times.
At least until Seymour copyrights it
I agree with both of your observations. I think they are pragmatic political tactics.
I also think that the haka and the hikoi were energising events.
The question for advocates of a minority constituency is what process will convert visibility, based on the appearance of conflict, into good will.
"Maori sovereignty" was a phrase popularized forty years ago by Donna Awatere, before she went on to become a business person and ACT party list member of parliament. It is a problematic concept, and that may be a reason why it has been superseded by rangatiratanga, which relates to a clearly defined system of governance that is not race-based or racially exclusive even though its origins are in Maoritanga. Those who talk and live rangatiratanga do not need the support of others (including the colonialist state) though they welcome engagement from any quarter. So the trick for Pakeha and others is to discover what rangatiratanga is all about, and how it can be the solution to many of the problems that Aotearoa is facing today.
Does not needing the support of the colonial state imply not needing welfare benefits?
I have personal experience of being on an unemployment benefit, so I can speak to this question. Discontinuous employment has been a problem for many of our people. In my case, I was blacklisted for employment by the New Zealand government and in order to provide for my family went on an unemployment benefit. I and others from my village in a similar situation worked our mara kai, collected windfall from orchards, cut firewood and so on in order to keep our whanau fed and warm. Frankly, none of us liked being "on the dole". We would rather have lived entirely by our own labour. But as things were at that time we would have had difficulty living in society without a cash income. Now our situation is improved, and we have resources that would allow us to survive well enough even in the absence of welfare benefits. However there are some costs (such as land rates) which would become a matter of contention if we were to be deprived of all state benefits. So the short answer is, we could survive without welfare benefits, but if the state made a decision to deprive our people of those benefits then the relationship between the state and our communities would necessarily become more antagonistic than it has been in the recent past.
Hi Geoff.
I for one would be solidly supportive of finding a way that decision making of Maori for … stuff … was made by the people concerned. Maybe there is a way forward with rangatiratanga.
How can we as a community, or multitude of communities, get to function in harmony together on these islands of ours down at the bottom left hand corner of the Pacific. There is a dominant pakeha culture, there is te ao Maori, there are multiple Asian communities, there are Indians from the subcontinent and also from Fiji, there are Pacifica … We are us, and we are different than say, Aussies or Americans. It doesn’t make any sense imo to make us all the same.
Maori are descendants of the indigenous people of New Zealand. This is important and we will all be better off imo if this is respectfully valued. Can we find a way forward together, all groups of us I mean, respecting differences? With the Treaty as a symbol? I hope so.
I am from the right myself. I voted ACT. I am all in favour of finding ways of having difference, of valuing different things but nevertheless rubbing along together without banging heads all the time.
My personal view is that the Treaty can be a symbol that we all share. Two peoples signed it with a vision in 1840 as to how they might find a way ahead together. Since then there has been a lot of history, including shameful breaches, but also a 50-year process to directly engage with these.
I’m an engineer not a politico, so I hope I haven’t used words that wind you up. That is not my intention at all.
I think David Lange was right, back in 2000, when he said something like we can have democracy or separatist sovereignty, but not both. I suspect the way forwards is finding how to not butt heads with the word ‘sovereignty’, and instead find out together what practical structures might be possible. The reason I said ‘stuff’, above, is because I don’t know what this might look like. I’m intrigued by what rangatiratanga might mean today though.
John
Kia ora John. You are right, "separatist sovereignty" is not a solution, and we do need to be "rubbing along together without banging heads all the time". However in order to achieve that we need to look carefully at how we have got to the present state, and understand the dangers inherent in our present course. Until quite late last century it was relatively simple. What had been a land inhabited by Maori, speaking te reo Maori, and living according to the norms of Maori culture, became a land largely inhabited by English people with a spattering of other ethnicities. The British in New Zealand still identified as British. On that basis they took us into the Boer War, two World Wars and a number of smaller wars designed to shore up the collapsing British empire. In the course of those conflicts the New Zealand state came up against the previously unforeseen problem of what to do about Maori and what were called "enemy aliens" living within New Zealand. The Maori issue was resolved by allowing those Maori who wanted to fight on the British side to do so, and ignoring those who chose not to fight. A few hundred "enemy aliens" were interned for the duration. So far so good. But now in 2025 as well as Maori and British people we have large numbers of Chinese, Indian, Australian, American, South African, Filipino, Pasifika and other peoples. The state lauds "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and actively encourages these other peoples to retain links to their home countries, just as the British have. And just as with the British, this brings the risk that the domestic and foreign conflicts of other countries will be played out in our own country, or worse, that New Zealand as a whole will be drawn into those conflicts. At the moment in New Zealand, Indians get along with Chinese, Indian Sikhs get along with Indian Hindus, Taiwan Chinese get along with Mainland Chinese, Sri Lanka Muslims live and let live with Sri Lanka Tamils, American Republicans get on with American Democrats and so on. But it would be folly to suppose that this will always be the case and New Zealand's potential for getting entangled in more foreign wars is very real. My argument is that for the sake of our own future well-being we need to step back from "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and to advance in the direction of a single culture and a common national identity. That culture and national identity can only be based on Maoritanga. Why not "Anglo" culture, given that English is the dominant language and people of English descent are still a majority of the population? Because Maori are no longer willing to tolerate British social hegemony, because other ethnic groups would not welcome it, and because a return to British monoculturalism would cement New Zealand into a partnership of Anglophone states that are preparing for a global war to preserve their historical dominance over the rest of the world.
It is not just that "Maori were here first". It is because Maoritanga is rooted in the land and has positive communal values that will stand us in good stead through the present century and into the next.
"New Zealand" will not be transformed into "Aotearoa" overnight. It is not a change that can be rushed or forced. But we all need to have a clear understanding of the consequences of the various alternative futures for our nation.
Hi Geoff.
I like the way you think. I can’t put my finger on it exactly, and I think we have different ideas about solutions, but I find your proposals reasoned and positive.
I remember how we used to all stand up at the beginning of movies when they played God Save the Queen. It was a big deal somehow when we all stopped doing that, and then the theatres stopped playing the anthem. There would be a reel of Movietone News next, that I think was black and white and started with a kookaburra laughing. It was kind of ‘empire news’ - although I might be mis-remembering this. When pakeha of my parent’s generation talked about ‘home’ they meant the UK. The ‘big OE’ was invariably to London.
That was a while ago now, the ‘60s and before. It finished in the ‘70s. We have changed as a country, all of us. ‘Because Maori are no longer willing to tolerate British social hegemony’ <- this is a big change. I welcome te ao Maori stepping forward into the limelight.
I’m pakeha myself. Both my grandfathers fought in WW1. Both were wounded. One was shot in the bum and gassed. The other had one of his balls shot off at the Somme (only one thank Christ) and was invalided out after brutal fighting with shell shock. I read a report written by his CO saying they ‘took no prisoners’ in that action. The other grandfather kept his family fed during the depression by working building bridges in the back blocks, and then went on to WW2. I marched against Vietnam up Queen St in Auckland. I don’t see a lot of mileage in wars.
I like that our Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese compatriots didn’t fight it out in our streets, or the Serbs and Croats, when their relatives were fighting it out overseas, or Palestinians and Jews now for that matter.
We are distinct in these islands. People come here as migrants. (Maori came here 800 years ago, give or take. Mine came 200 years ago.) After a generation or two they are no longer of the culture their forebears came from, they have our accents. They bring things that adds to our ‘us’. For myself, I like that there is a Diwali and a Chinese New Year.
‘My argument is that for the sake of our own future well-being we need to step back from "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and to advance in the direction of a single culture and a common national identity.’
I think hard-edged “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are an identitarian fad, a generational thing. It will pass as those folks get new bees in their bonnets. It won’t switch off overnight. In the way of these things, we will be to some extent changed.
‘That culture and national identity can only be based on Maoritanga.’
Yeah, well, maybe? I wouldn’t fight against this, but it would need to be sold to me. There is an egalitarian edge here in NZ; we are not that disposed to having stuff shoved at us. But this is why I said that I am curious about rangatiratanga and what it might mean here, now.
I wouldn’t put money on it though. My take is that we do have a culture here, and that it is uniquely ours. I don’t think it is anglo (although one of my grandfathers was anglophile). I think it has strong legs that will see us through the present silly, shallow and divisive attempts at social engineering.
The real deal, that actually matters, is that we keep the conversation going imo.
John
Maori are not strangers to diversity. Every iwi is different, they each have their own whakapapa, tikanga, and reo. The concept and practice of kotahitanga brings these separate iwi together as nga iwi Maori.
The advocates of diversity in the colonialist system seem to lack an exact equivalent to kotahitanga. The argument from "Hobson's Pledge" that "We are all one people" is rightly or wrongly construed to mean "You have no separate identity" (which immediately puts Maori backs up) whereas the notion of kotahitanga makes it clear that iwi and all ethnic identities are accepted, respected and valued. Diversity on its own however is not a sufficient basis for a stable, productive and harmonious society. We also need to share common values and recognise a well-defined common interest. The concept of kotahitanga has evolved over nearly two centuries to fulfill precisely that purpose. It is more nuanced and more relevant to our situation than anything that I have heard from the colonialist side. So why not adopt it as a national principle? And along with it the principles of mana motuhake, and rangatiratanga?
Kotahitanga has been a long time in the making, and it continues to evolve. It is not something that can be forced on anyone. As you say, "we are not disposed to having stuff shoved at us". No one is. As you say, there is a good conversation to be had, and we can be optimistic for the future.
There might be aligned concepts here with pluralistic liberal democracy. Not the same, but having similar flavours.
From my brief reading, kotahitanga is about ways of finding unity of purpose, together, alignment amongst disparate groups. (Forgive me if I am way off.) This is an effortful process and doesn’t just happen.
It looks to me to share some of the same intentions as a ‘pluralistic democracy’, where this is about different groups working out how to be together as a single polity, pulling together, without killing each other. No question that there was plenty of historical killing in Europe while (and after) these patterns were being worked out.
I doubt that either kotahitanga or pluralistic democracies work in a mechanical, guaranteed way. Their value though is that they can work at all.
Mana motuhake and rangatiratanga align (again, forgive me if I am wrong, I don’t mean to offend and I acknowledge my understanding is as deep as a puddle) with something I think we hold dear together. Self-determination. The importance of autonomy and the right to exercise authority over our own affairs. Advocacy for the political empowerment of our communities to make decisions that affect our lives and governance.
I think this resonates with who all of us are in NZ. Okay, I might be drawing too long a bow, but we are not a culture of forelock tuggers. Various of my forebears, and many others, came here precisely to get away from a stifling class system.
The valuable conversations for our community are to see where the alignments lie, and where the differences are. With good will.
In this century New Zealand has had four real Prime Ministers and a bunch of incidental ones. Two of the real Prime Ministers, John Key and Christopher Luxon, have been wealthy persons. The other two, Helen Clarke and Jacinda Ardern, have been professional politicians. Not in the sense that every member of parliament is a professional politician but in the sense of a profession for which they have trained and in which they have spent virtually their entire careers.
The problem with persons of wealth is self-evident. They are not us. However, they claim to know how the system works, they offer their wealth as evidence of that knowledge, and so they seem to be a safe enough bet to many, even though we assume that their policies will tend towards the interests of people like themselves, that is, other people of wealth.
The trouble with the professional politicians is that in order to have any sort of career in politics they need to ingratiate themselves with the media, and, you guessed it, persons of wealth and power. So whether directly or indirectly we get rule of the wealthy and powerful. Elon Musk has managed to shortcut the whole connection between wealth and political power in the US, but so far in New Zealand we are managing to keep up appearances. The point is that not so many people care what Musk does because they apply the same logic to him as they do to Key and Luxon. Musk is successful. He owns a big chunk of the US economy and he has billions in assets. Therefore he must know stuff. Therefore people expect that he will manage the state and the economy well. The fact that he has not been elected doesn't matter a damn. People think they may as well have the organ grinder calling the tune. The monkeys (sorry Helen, Jacinda and Kamala) can stay home or hive off to some ivory tower where there is room for them.
Our present model of democracy cannot offer any alternatives apart from persons of wealth and professional politicians. It is not a matter of choice. The system is simply incapable of anything else. To compound matters, the central concern of politics has become economic management. Apart from making war and keeping a lid on things domestically, that is the sole role of government in neo-liberal ideology. In any case, by design New Zealand governments have been left with sweet all to manage apart from the economy, and most economic management is outsourced to Treasury and the Reserve Bank. To make a case for being relevant and successful in their own right, the professional politicians in particular find it helpful to join in a war every so often. As often as not they fail in that enterprise, and so we go on.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the system gives only two classes of people access to power. That is the way it will always be under the present system of government and that is why structural reform of the political system is imperative.
Unless you’re including Acting PMs the bunch is actually two, English and Hipkins. What a pity English, deprived by Peters, didn’t get the chance to make a difference.
Great comments, thanks Geoff! Would a different structure not be prone to much the same problems – but in different ways?
Labour will never gain power.Act need only replay Kiri Tamihere Waititi's budget day rant to show true colour of TPM
Never...?
I'm middle of the road, not a true red "Labour man" but never? I dont agree. There's too many variables, and this IS politics!. The coalition could collapse, and some new Labour leader could do a "Jacinda" . The TPM performance will possibly become more moderate, if the country turns against them. Theres a lot of water to go under this bridge in the 6 month hearing. OTOH, observe the world heading to the right with politics of hatred and resentment.
Are you saying that the politics of hatred and resentment is coming from the left, and driving people to the right wing of politics ? I could agree with that. Remember Posie Parker in Albert park.
No, I didn't say that. There's hatred, resentment and intolerance on left and right. The world seems to have lost its middle ground and this more extreme polarization will see a rocky road for some time. Putin started off reasonable, and now will probably ruin the Ukraine, (and maybe other ex-Soviet states)aided by the obscene oaf and his loyal money-crazed lieutenants . Then let's mull over about Korea, and Chinas ambitions towards Taiwan and the Pacific. I suspect we've seen the best of times.
The middle ground in many nations has been chipped away over the last several decades. Basic needs like housing and education have been turned into monopolised commodities, jobs get offshored or devalued, while those profiting from the above have effectively scapegoated the vulnerable. Angry voters start voting for political bomb-throwers and body counts start to mount.
This cartoon sums up the whole mess...
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2656977204337311
True colours? What did you find unreasonable specifically?
Labour's problems run much deeper than policy... that doesn't win elections & itself policy isn't going to bring them back. For years a lack of front-facing and strategic talent has eaten away at the party.
Past positioning decisions around how they portray themselves to voters on both sides have painted them into a corner. Eg. over the years the way Labour has managed their appeal with the Māori vote has been pretty arrogant & one-dimensional. They never built a strategy for dealing with TPM. Its basically been don't talk bout TPM and pretend they're a non-player.
Labour's current non-strategy is a recipe for disaster. Leaning harder left with policy makes them look weak if they're not perceived to be in control of the left. Labour needs an emotive messaging strategy that can crush TPM. Interestingly a by product of this would be shoring up the centrist swing vote, putting them in a very strong position.
Look at the current Labour faces... There is no one who could credibly front that message. Making matters worse is that the party is lacking the expertise to build that narrative and execute it organically. They would very likely botch it & manage to alienate Māori. There are some similarities to how the democrats didn't have the awareness to deal with the progressive perceptions that were crippling them.
Working with politicians in a campaign setting you come to realize they don't know politics more than the average person - very surface level. A party has to have the infrastructure to support them. The bloated traditional parties are the last to evolve strategy. They're mostly carried by their brands and swing of the political pendulum... that includes National.
Dealing with party factions, energizing & mobilizing new voters, TPM have a big leg up on Labour here. This idea that "TPM is on the left so are an ally to Labour" is very much the wrong takeaway in the bigger picture... that lack of foresight & planning is what put them in this situation.
Excellent comments, thanks Paul. A tax policy won't win or lose the election. And Labour is at risk of being led by two smaller parties, to an extent even greater than the Nats are at present. You're right that Labour lacks a leader to pull it off, and, even if they had one, that person would probably be held back from within. There are some things they can do about it, but they seem to lack self-critical faculties – rather like Dem's at present. Cheers.
An excellent summary and likely prediction, thanks Grant. (Partly) left unsaid by you is the growing public skepticism of so-called "anthropologic climate change".
Some folks are finally beginning to realise that this ideology without foundation) is adding huge costs that have been behind inflation. I quote: "...The likely next prime minister of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, is an articulate and experienced politician who’s campaigning on the cost of living and on rolling back carbon pricing..." You correctly point out excessive immigration as another.
I hope that New Zealand will come to our collective senses and push back against the politicisation of the natural phenomenon that is climate change.
Thanks for the kind words Peter!