The analogies are interesting and as always it's never the same the second time around. I think you are correct. I've observed at close quarters the 'decolonisation' of midwifery. The Midwifery Council ran a Treaty informed process to develop a new Scope of Practice which was due to come into force next month. It is currently the subject of a multiple complaints to the Regulatory Review Select Committee. The Council has responded to a "please explain" request with an extensive document reiterating the process undertaken and reproducing the feedback that showed the extremely strong resistance to the approach that the Council had taken. See https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/54SCREGR_EVI_99b32fd1-e4d4-4a2e-13b7-08dc8056d984_REGR1003/06331d20e086f9c072c7f9a01f88a71206f8ef6f
The Council had attempted to make the Scope gender neutral and changed the subjects of midwifery care to be the whanau rather than the pregnant woman. As such the new Scope is in direct conflict with the Health and Disability Commission code of patients rights which describe individuals i.e pregnant women, not multiples of people as the subject of midwifery care. At a single stroke the decolonising rationale for women having the words that describe them and their individual human rights is their own births is withdrawn on the basis that services will be improved. (No evidence was provided to support this stance.)
There is a second worrying aspect to all of this and it is deception. Better services to Maori and a treaty led model were the primary driver for the changes. However the only published article about the Scope made absolutely clear that embedding gender ideology into midwifery was an important purpose of this work. There was however not one reference to this objective in any of the written materials supplied to midwives and interested others by the Council as the development of the scope took place. (A number of submissions noted the likely intent of the removing the word woman was for this purpose and there were many objections (and a few supportive comments in the feedback). https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/01-03-2024/cutting-through-the-noise-why-whanau-centred-midwifery-is-not-erasing-women So apparently decolonisation also equates to gender theory's implementation by subterfuge.
This is a nuanced subject and I confess that I don't know the details of the argument. However it is true that Maori see pregnancy, birth and reproduction as something affecting the whanau as a whole as well as the mother to be. Hence the word "hapu" can mean either "pregnant" or "clan" and "whanau" means both "family" and "to give birth". As European society has become more individualistic it has concentrated focus on the woman herself. There is a wisdom which consists of recognising and respecting both the individual and communal aspects.
I don't disagree that most issues involve individual and communitarian aspects and the trick is in getting the right balance. However:
1) The new Scope is not for Maori women, but for all women, in all pregnancies.
2) How about the counterfactual? In general people see pregnancy, birth and reproduction as something that has no impact on others. I suggest that there is likely etymology in all cultures that links childbirth and family creation and hopefully most women are pregnant in context that includes those who care for and about them. Surely that does not mean any should have to defer to family patriarchs or comply with the diktat of an assumed "happy family" as the gazetted scope now provides for.) https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2024-gs1575
3) If women do not have agency in pregnancy and childbirth where else should the law and regulations demand that they defer? Relationship choices? Jobs? Where to live? Whether to continue a pregnancy? This is a very big wedge that supposed "feminists" are responsible for.
4) The Midwifery Council now report that it is whanau who have ultrasounds. "Informed consent is the process of clearly exchanging information so that whanau can make an informed decision about their healthcare options, including the option of declining the treatment, procedure or intervention. (Adding helpfully) It is important to make sure that the person does not feel that they have been coerced at all." https://www.midwiferycouncil.health.nz/common/Uploaded%20files/eMidpoint/eMidpoint%20August%202024.pdfultrasounds
That this has been allowed to stand, and has received vociferous support from people purporting to have the interests of women at heart, confirms just how many baddies there now are in our society - as well as the urgent necessity of confronting them.
Very true! And thanks! While the Scope is apparently still in the hands of the Regulatory Review Select Committee the "baddies" are continuing to develop the education/training and professional advice that are subsidiary to the Scope. The outcome hangs in the balance - whether the regulators have the desire to push back on this. Public opinion is not in favour of the "baddies" that is for sure so it is a relatively risk free push-back should they choose it.
I'm an American who lived, and worked in NZ, and graduated with a History degree from Vic. I have to agree with Chris Trotter that equality before the law, and before one's fellow citizens, is the way to go.
American slaves were virtually all captured in West Africa by other West Africans and sold to European and American slave traders, survived the ungodly awful "Middle Passage," and were sold as property into lifetime and inheritable servitude, often as field labourers in truly ungodly working conditions. After the American Civil War and today, I believe nearly all of their descendants want equality before the law and equal opportunity--and an accurate memory of their history as property before the Civil War and then for generations after the war as 3rd rate citizens and, in many cases for those who remained in the South, what was in effect, serfdom.
As I understand the NZ history and contemporary situation, the Maori people certainly did lose their country (or tribal countries?) to British imperialism and suffered considerable discrimination. But their history is much more a parallel with that of the Indigenous People (Indians) of America who lost their tribal independence and were forced to acclimate to the American imperial invaders of their lands.
I hope the Maori people in Aotearoa-New Zealand, while never forgetting their history, come to aspire to equality of opportunity and colour-blind citizenship.
Alan, it is more the case that the people of Aotearoa aspire to preserve their own communities under the principles of rangatiratanga. "Colour blind citizenship" does not mean a lot to them. With all due respect to the principle, I doubt that it means much to anyone. There is an assumption in some quarters that if you give Maori "citizenship" and "equality before the law" while eliminating their identity as Maori living in community, they will be happy. Why should they be? Are European New Zealanders happy with their status as anonymous and isolated individual citizens "equal before the law"? I would suggest that while a privileged minority may be, the majority are not. Should Maori sacrifice their birthright for a mess of colonialist pottage? Or should Pakeha aspire to the same rights privileges and values of Maori living under rangatiratanga?
Thanks, Geoff. Good points. I didn't mean to imply that Maori should somehow cease being Maori, any more than, in America, Cherokee, or Pueblo, or Pueblo people should cease thinking of themselves in those terms. But if an individual Maori wishes to work or live in a largely pakeha workplace or community, that should be her or his prerogative--while probably wishing to maintain at least a degree of his or her Maori identity. And, if a Maori person, or family, wishes to live in a Maori community, as many Indigenous People in North America (the US and Canada) choose to live in traditional tribal communities on Reserves, then well and good. And that person should be able to also participate in the larger national and international activities of Aotearoa New Zealand insofar as they may want to.
I must spend a little time, when time permits, investigating rangatiratanga.
I think all the Woke leftie losers you are referring to are better compared to Donald Trump, in that they are poor losers who cant believe or accept that they lost the last election. The mainstream Media is trying to look more professional now by being more even-handed, but the atmosphere is still heavily polarized by the Left who are being extremely negative and petulant. Luckily that doesnt worry the Coalition in power.
Mark, you have put your finger on one of the key differences between rangatiratanga and the pseudo-democratic Westminster system in which one group "win" an election and another group "lose". "We won, you lost, eat that" in the immortal words of Sir Michael Cullen. That is not democracy. It is political stupidity. Politics as a zero sum game exposes another fatal flaw in the system, which is that the general public never really knows who has "won" an election. They have to take it on trust. Thus opening the way to electoral fraud or, what is just as bad, false allegations of electoral fraud and from that the very real risk of civil war. Fortunately rangatiratanga suffers from neither of these deficiencies. It is an open and transparent system without winners and losers. That is why we will be sticking with rangatiratanga regardless of the outcome of Mr Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill.
Geoff you refer to being anonymous, but that appears to be part of democracy, because voting is anonymous. I noticed when our Council voted about Maori wards recently, the room was filled with pro-Maori activists and supporters, with more outside, and the voting is open and transparent. I couldnt help thinking that those councillors are under a lot of pressure to vote yes, and other ratepayers who might disagree are busy at work. Is there any value in anonymous voting, so people can be honest without external pressure?
Voting is not and could not be anonymous in local council or parliamentary assemblies. It is unthinkable that you could vote for a member of parliament or a councilor and then have no idea how he or she exercised the power that has been given. It is only the "ordinary citizen" who remains anonymous (and essentially powerless) under the Westminster system. Under rangatiratanga there is no such distinction between "leader" and "ordinary" members of the hapu. Everyone has a real personal identity and everyone's opinions are openly held and expressed. Anonymity and the secret ballot are not "part of democracy". They are relatively recent innovations with disadvantages which far exceed any perceived advantages they may bring to the political process.
How big a group of people can rangatiratanga include ? If you have more than 500 people it becomes hard to hear everybodys opinion, and if you have more than 1,000 people it becomes hard to remember everyones name. I went to a high school with 1,000 people so I know. Do we NZers need to be in 5,000 separate tribes of 1000 for this to work ? That is why I think democracy evolved. But there is plenty to not like about it. That is why I think self determination is more realistic.
Rangatiratanga works through levels from whanau through hapu to iwi, and personal connections are established and maintained at every level. In your high school you probably knew all the members of your class, some better than others, and your teachers would have known all their students. Your teachers would all be known to each other and to the principal. The principal would have known the principals of neighbouring schools, and so on. A school is not a democracy as rangatiratanga is, but it does illustrate the point that you do not need to know five hundred or more people to function effectively within rangatiratanga, and in any case one of the virtues of rangatiratanga is that every hui gives you opportunities to meet and get to know the people who make up your own community.
Chris, thanks for an interesting commentary. Certainly agreeing with your penultimate paragraph. If you don't mind me saying that despite your leftwing label, you often now appear to be expressing what might be seen as rightwing views. Am just reminded of Elon Musk's stated yearning for "centrist" politics and politicians. Wouldn't that be wonderful to accept the reality that not everything is polarised and that sometimes traditionally left or right views, or some mix make the best sense in the circumstances. Back to your commentary, the Nazis with their death's head caps were not National "Socialists" for no reason. Passionate Socialism inevitably morphs into Fascism, just as we're experiencing even here in little old NZ with our social(ist) justice warriors, mass psychotic, DEI "decolonists", on local councils, in academia, the judiciary and throughout leadership of most of our institutions.
I think lots of people are just overdramatising things. That's obviously true of Te Pati Maori, but right-wing sites are also full of people carrying on about Maori being lazy, entitled, having it coming to them, neolithic, former cannibals, etc. Seymour has rarked up the latter effectively, and TPM have little to offer but more histrionics. But I assume Seymour's rhetoric is really about carving off some of the right-wing vote from National, to benefit ACT in 2026: nothing really to do with human rights or equality. He's a consummate politician who's outsmarting the other lot. But I was struck by Chris's adducing the precedent of deploying tikanga in the last appeal concerning Peter Ellis. I'd have thought it was helpful in the latter case - ironically one where no-one was actually Maori, as far as I know. There, everything had dragged out for decades till Ellis died, and the case went ahead out of concern for his family, or whanau - whereas otherwise his demise would have voided the proceedings? After all, that case back in the '90s manifested hysteria of another kind.
What the Ellis case demonstrated, in my opinion, Joanne, was the repeated and unforgiveable failure of the New Zealand judiciary to recognise and correct a profound injustice.
Time after time, judges were presented with the opportunity to set Ellis free, and time after time, they upheld the original verdict. The contrast with the behaviour of other judiciaries in relation to the "Satanic Abuse" moral panic is a sharp one.
Only after Ellis had died was action taken by our Supreme Court, and even then it was to use his case to smuggle "Tikanga Maori" into the New Zealand legal system.
I agree that the Ellis case represented a 'profound injustice'. I assumed when tikanga was invoked, it was to give the judges a reason continue the case after Ellis's death, rather than as an excuse to introduce tikanga per se. Tikanga was a resource after the years of injustice perpetrated by the mainstream justice system. Perhaps someone knows whether there was any other way for the case to continue legally after the appellant's death?
Mr Trotter knows that those on the colonialist side of the argument are not "colour blind". Some of them may be without racial bias or prejudice but regrettably a large number are not.
He should also know that the nationalist cause comprises Maori, Pakeha and others and that its ultimate goal is to restore the rights of our communities which have suffered abuse and degradation through two centuries of colonialist rule. We are engaged in a constitutional struggle in which a pseudo-democratic neo-liberal system based on a mass of isolated and anonymous "citizens" subject to the rule of financial and political elites confronts organic communities which function under the genuinely democratic principles of rangatiratanga.
Mr Trotter is a declared monarchist. That is to say that he believes that New Zealand's head of state should remain always an unelected person of British descent. So much for his professions of respect for "non-racial democracy". Trotter asks "Are we the baddies?". The straight answer would be "Yes Mr Trotter, unfortunately you are the baddies".
I understand rangatiratanga to mean self-determination, and I think it is a great idea, but can it really govern millions of people? Every civilized country I can think of is using democracy to govern, maybe because Tribalism only works for smaller numbers of people. I think less people is easier to govern, whatever system you use. When populations reach millions, most of those people are anonymous. Sorry to disappoint you. How do you plan to stop people being anonymous ?
Rangatiratanga is a natural system of governance and as such it is profoundly democratic. . "Self-determination" is more accurately translated as "mana motuhake" which is closely associated with rangatiratanga. Rangatiratanga has features that are not found in the Westminster system such as self chosen constituencies of variable size (the hapu), mutual responsibilities of rangatira and followers and direct and continuous accountability of rangatira to the members of their hapu. All these features are scalable with modern technology. So rangatiratanga can extend to a population of 5 million, 50 million or 500 million. You are right of course, that is only possible if the mass gives up their anonymity. The fact is that if you want to effectively participate in a genuine democracy you cannot be anonymous. No politician can be anonymous and no citizen should be anonymous. We can't stop people from being anonymous but together we can give them the opportunity to express a genuine individual identity under rangatiratanga.
Tawhiao Te Wherowhero proscribed alcohol in the 1860's, and all drugs are prohibited on most marae these days. There are those in the present government who are promoting the interests of the tobacco trade, and the government profits from the trade, while there are victims among Pakeha as well as Maori, some of them very close to me as it happens. So this is an issue over which tangata motu are in conflict with the tobacco trade and the colonialist regime. However you cannot deduce someone's political position from their use or non-use of tobacco or any other drug.
It is sensible to prohibit drugs on the marae, but dont you think the best solution for tobacco is to grow our own, and not be involved in the tobacco trade or the colonialist regime, cos it is only a plant, and the same goes for medicinal cannabis.
This morning I lost a dear friend. She was beautiful. Truly beautiful. She started smoking as a fourteen year old girl. She stopped when it was too late. Some people would say that she made her own choices. God does not say that. God tells us to love one another even if it causes us more pain than the soul can bear. Can you understand that?
I dont think many people choose to be anonymous, except maybe celebrities, so what do people have to give up to stop being anonymous? I can tell other people who I voted for, and I am also a club member, so am I considered not anonymous? You can tell that I am a bit confused by what it takes to be anonymous, or not. Winston Peters and Shane Jones are not anonymous, so are they the bad guys ?
Everybody arrived by boat, so "Colonists" includes Maori tribes. Some of the people of which have suffered from culture shock from being suddenly exposed to a more advanced society with different values and experiences. Such cultural disorientation is not uncommon with the advance of civilisation over the ages, typically by "colonisation". However the ability to integrate, embrace and adopt the new culture quickly, fully and even surpassingly, particularly its more advanced methods and modes of thought, is what shows the mettle of a people.
Colonists are those who immigrated to New Zealand and engaged in the process of creating the Colony of New Zealand as a Realm of the British Crown. Therefore no Maori could have been a colonist.
A colonialist, on the other hand, is one who gives allegiance to the British sovereign and supports the continuation of the New Zealand state as a realm of the British Crown. For a range of reasons individual Maori may choose to be colonialist, but in general in Aotearoa we can be either tangata motu (nationalist) or colonialist. That choice is an expression of political philosophy and has nothing to do with race.
Maori will not accept your designation of European society as "more advanced" than our own, or the ability to "adopt" European culture as evidence of their mettle as a people. Some aspects of European culture have been taken up, and others (attitudes towards the whenua, hapori, alcohol, tobacco and other drugs and so on) have been emphatically rejected by tangata motu. That is as it should be.
Please check the definition. A country that sends settlers to a place and establishes political control over it. Well yes, you are technically correct, as the Polynesians that arrived were of no known country and certainly didn't have the wherewithal to establish political control.
"Superficially, it is the promoters of decolonisation and indigenisation who most resemble the Northern abolitionists". Yes, on one level - on another they resemble the southern slaveholders as slavery was practiced in pre-European New Zealand.
The superficiality consists in trying to equate the situation in Aotearoa in 2024 with that of the United States in 1861. An interesting exercise in the display of mental agility but ultimately pointless.
David, I assume you are trying to suggest that Maori were slave owners in pre-European times and remain of the same slave owning mindset today. That sounds just a little bit racist. Also rather ignorant. Slavery takes different forms in different social orders. When Christians talk of being "slaves to Christ" they don't mean to say that Christ has them in leg irons and under the lash. Slavery in Maori society was a different phenomenon to that in the US, and even in the US slavery took various forms. So stop this silliness. If you want to talk about slavery, then do so intelligently. If you want to talk about the constitutional systems for Aotearoa, then likewise, do so intelligently.
I agree it is an exercise in historical gymnastics but it is true slavery existed in a form in Maori society (some say a comparison to prisoners of war is more apt than to Atlantic slaves). Of course Maori don't have the same mindset today.
Actually I was very shocked by this article and found it worryingly anti-Māori and te Tiriti, which I believe makes Aotearoa a better place. I’m still pondering on why it was disturbing to me that a left-wing commentator could write like this. Fundamentally I think it comes down to the baddies (and goodies) argument which is too black and white when all of these issues are far more nuanced. I have enjoyed earlier articles written by you Chris and have found them thought provoking and good to read. I dont really want to read pro te Tiriti referendum arguments on a democracy project Substack because I’m happy to continue with our existing constitutional arrangements which include te Tiriti. I have linked this to democracy because I support the way we as a nation have evolved our democratic processes, and now see referenda like the one proposed by Act to be divisive and misleading and ultimately self-serving. So, not democratic at all!
Perhaps you found the post disturbing, Meredith, because the idea that it is possible to hold left-wing views and yet remain unconvinced by the current orthodox interpretation of te Tiriti o Waitangi is, for you, a novel one.
This intuition of mine is reinforced by your comment that you don't want to read arguments with which you disagree. A great pity, since engaging with the ideas of those who hold differing viewpoints is critical to the democracy you say you support. Although, your definition of democracy is not the definition preferred by most political scientists.
You will, I hope, forgive me for pointing out that your assertion that democratic mechanisms, like the referendum, somehow cease to be democratic when they are used to resolve an issue you would rather not see debated, does not strike me as being very "nuanced".
I would also point out that te Tiriti is not a formal element of New Zealand's constitution, and cannot become one unless and until its precise meaning, and the principles animating it, are agreed upon by the New Zealand people.
Debate and discussion are good things, Meredith, avoiding them, or, worse still attempting to prevent them, is not a good thing. History reveals that those who begin by censoring and suppressing the expression of views opposed to their own, almost always move on to much worse violations of human rights. They end up doing things that turn them into very bad baddies indeed.
"I dont really want to read pro te Tiriti referendum arguments"
Have you really even thought critically about this? About the implications of systemic and institutionalised political and legal authority grounded in ethnic difference?
The Ardern government sought to strengthen and formalise group ethnicity as a political and legal entity; appallingly they refused to disclose their intentions to the people at the time of the 2020 election. That "divisive and misleading" (to say nothing of antidemocratic) agenda is, to a significant degree, why we are where we are. Perhaps it, the referendum, really is all a part of how "we as a nation have evolved our democratic processes". Perhaps it's democracy itself that you're afraid of?
Thanks David and Chris for your feedback on my comments. It’s clear we have vastly different views and experiences. I’m not going to defend my views any further or criticise you for yours. My final point is that referenda are now very crude methods to determine big, complex issues. A one sentence statement with a yes or no, no longer does justice to big issues imho. Hence my negative views on referenda which I believe I’m allowed to hold.
I seriously doubt, Meredith, that we stand very far apart on most issues. The only way to discover the degree of philosophical commonality between yourself and others, however, is to engage with them. Try reading Plato's "Republic" - if only to learn how discussing, arguing about, and debating big ideas makes you wiser.
True thinking is difficult. One way is to, as honestly as you can, create opposing avatars in your imagination and allow them to have it out.
Or you can have that contest with real people but you have to be prepared to humbly, and genuinely, listen and to speak the truth - not many can really do that either. Too often words are simply weapons aimed at supporting a prior, emotionally or ideologically derived position. Or you can simply refuse to have the discussion at all. Then what?
“Life is suffering
Love is the desire to see unnecessary suffering ameliorated
Truth is the handmaiden of love
Dialogue is the pathway to truth
Humility is recognition of personal insufficiency and the willingness to learn
To learn is to die voluntarily and be born again, in great ways and small
So speech must be untrammeled
So that dialogue can take place
So that we can all humbly learn
So that truth can serve love
So that suffering can be ameliorated
So that we can all stumble forward to the Kingdom of God”
On one level when Chris Trotter suggests that we should be “colour blind” he is saying that we should be without racial bias. This is how most of us would interpret his metaphor and I would have no problem with that. But on another level he is implying that we should take on the disability of colour blindness as an obstinate refusal to see the aroha, beauty and vibrancy of Maori living as Maori.
There are those in the political establishment who feel threatened by Maoritanga, and not without reason. As well as serving as a cultural taonga independently of all other political systems or cultures, Maoritanga was the line of defence against colonialism, and remains the only real alternative to the complete triumph of neo-liberalism.
Then there are those who have no such fears of Maoritanga, but who harbour a feeling that Maori have something that non-Maori are missing out on. The colour, the warmth, and the security of a collective whanau and hapu-based culture of which non-Maori may have little experience. So the first group are working actively to arouse the second against Maori. In other words the ACT party is employing the politics of envy directly against Maori and indirectly against Pakeha, because if their Treaty Principles project were to succeed Pakeha would stand to lose even more than Maori.
From the point of view of the Crown the Treaty Principles Bill in concert with the “colour blind” principle would have the effect of making Maori into mere nondescript citizens rather than Maori. A hundred years ago the idea of being a New Zealand citizen had wide appeal. So much so that many Maori were prepared to give their lives in defence of the empire. That is no longer the case. Citizenship in New Zealand has been devalued and degraded over the past forty years. New Zealand is no longer a nation defined by a commitment to the common good. Citizenship in neo-liberal New Zealand means “every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost”, the devil in this case being the forces of global capitalism.
Are Maori going to trade rangatiratanga for this mess of colonialist pottage? I doubt it. You don't need to be colour blind. You do need to have aroha. I believe that most Pakeha and other non-Maori can manage that very well.
It's a real toss-up, Geoff, as to which line of argument here is the more offensive: your "noble savage" characterisation of pre-European Maori culture, as inaccurate as it is condescending; or, your claim that the neo-tribal capitalism of the Iwi Leaders Group is in anyway distinguishable from the neo-liberal capitalism that reversed the rapidly rising living standards enjoyed by Maori in the 1970s and early-1980s.
Sociologically, those most deeply immersed in any culture tend to be those best educated in its traditions. In contemporary New Zealand, it is the rapidly growing Maori middle-class which enjoys the most ready access to that sort of cultural education.
These folk are enjoying the best of both worlds, Maori and Pakeha - and good luck to them! Certainly, I do not believe they would thank you, if your romanticised version of pre-contact Te Ao Maori was somehow restored.
Maori horizons, like those of all "non-descript" New Zealand citizens, have grown too wide for them to be herded into the cramped little museum you are offering as Aotearoa-New Zealand's future.
Chris, where did you get the "noble savage" idea from? Not from me. Did I ever mention the Iwi Leaders Group? I did not. Why do you think that only middle class Maori are immersed in Maoritanga? They may be the ones that you see in the media, and we see them in and around the village, doing good work, taking a lead on many issues, but the younger generation from ordinary working class whanau take to Maoritanga with an enthusiasm which is absolutely inspiring. This is no "cramped little museum" Chris. It is a lively vibrant community. If you find that offensive it is because you have never taken the trouble to see how Maori live in a traditional setting or listen to how they think. But let's get this straight. We are not talking about "pre-contact Te Ao Maori". We are talking about what actually exists after two centuries of interaction with European cultures. Like some others you are too dismissive of what you do not understand and have no desire to understand.
Identify this cultural Shangri-La, Geoff. Give us a town, a suburb, a street, something solid and real that we can all check. No offence, but you sound like a salesman - let us examine your product.
You won't be welcome here Chris while you are taking that offensive, sarcastic attitude. You want to check us out? You want to "examine our product"? You and a team of your mates? Well, you are making yourself an example of everything that is wrong about colonialism. Get yourself a bit of humility, then come back to me privately and I will invite you onto my land.
Kia ora Meredith. It was unfortunate that Chris Trotter decided to frame this debate in terms of "baddies" versus "goodies". That is divisive from the get go, and it would seem that Maori who take a certain view of te Tiriti are being categorized as the "baddies", while the ACT party and their supposedly "colour blind" associates are the "goodies". In the many short comments that Chris has tacked on beneath my own he seems to be implying that I in particular am one of those "baddies". In such a political climate a referendum may not have good outcomes. Despite that, I have no fears about the referendum, in the unlikely event that it was to proceed. If passed in the House of Parliament and approved by a referendum, the bill will alter the course of government and the Crown, but it will not change the ways in which Maori live in community except to make them more self-reliant and more conscious of their own mana motuhake. Then the task for Pakeha of good faith will be to find new ways of relating directly to Maori communities rather than relying on the Crown to do that on their behalf. That also may have good long-term outcomes. Since the first contacts between peoples Maori have always made room for Pakeha, as is evidenced by the many Maori who are of mixed descent. The Crown on the other hand has had a much more problematic attitude towards Maori which I don't need to expand upon here because these days we are all pretty familiar with the history.
Have just assumed that all this is a political beat-up. Last govt screwed up the 3 Waters campaign by advocating co-governance, and then we had Batchelor, Jordan Williams (with Groundswell) and ACT seizing their chance to rark up anti-Maori sentiment. Hobson's Pledge and Muriel Newman's lot also let rip. Then Te Pati Maori went in to bat with extreme rhetoric and aggravated the situation. The referendum may well fly, however, as people tend to get the warm fuzzies about referenda and support them. I don't mind what anyone writes on here, but I think this is about party politics, and both Labour and National have been outflanked. Many centrist types are upset about the whole thing, but I think we're being played.
Chris Trotter wrote: "The profoundly undemocratic nature of the fire-eaters’ opposition was illustrated by their vehement objections to the Act Party’s policy of holding a binding referendum to entrench, or not, the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi."
Opposition to the proposed referendum comes from a number of quarters, with different concerns that have nothing to do with opposition to democracy. Most commonly people are saying that it is inappropriate to have a referendum to decide the proper interpretation of a legal instrument
But let us assume that you do that. If the proposal fails, nothing is gained. If it passes by a small margin it merely shows that society is seriously divided. If it passes by a comfortable margin, Maori will hold to their own interpretation of Te Tiriti regardless. They will continue to believe that the words "kawana", "rangatira", "kawanatanga" and "rangatiratanga" have the same meaning in Te Tiriti as they do in Te Paipera Tapu. They will continue to hold to rangatiratanga and they will simply see the referendum result as another case of deceit and duplicity from those who support the authority of the British Crown in New Zealand.
You could have a referendum to declare that red is green and green is red, and if your propaganda machine was sufficiently well oiled the proposal might pass, but unless it passed unanimously you would have chaos at the traffic lights the morning after.
If you want the referendum, then go for it. But first you should think about exactly what benefits it might bring you.
Do baddies refuse to accept and abide by the result of a binding referendum? Yes, I'm afraid they do. (That's when they're not indulging in argument ad absurdum.)
Spectacular writing Chris.
The analogies are interesting and as always it's never the same the second time around. I think you are correct. I've observed at close quarters the 'decolonisation' of midwifery. The Midwifery Council ran a Treaty informed process to develop a new Scope of Practice which was due to come into force next month. It is currently the subject of a multiple complaints to the Regulatory Review Select Committee. The Council has responded to a "please explain" request with an extensive document reiterating the process undertaken and reproducing the feedback that showed the extremely strong resistance to the approach that the Council had taken. See https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/54SCREGR_EVI_99b32fd1-e4d4-4a2e-13b7-08dc8056d984_REGR1003/06331d20e086f9c072c7f9a01f88a71206f8ef6f
The Council had attempted to make the Scope gender neutral and changed the subjects of midwifery care to be the whanau rather than the pregnant woman. As such the new Scope is in direct conflict with the Health and Disability Commission code of patients rights which describe individuals i.e pregnant women, not multiples of people as the subject of midwifery care. At a single stroke the decolonising rationale for women having the words that describe them and their individual human rights is their own births is withdrawn on the basis that services will be improved. (No evidence was provided to support this stance.)
There is a second worrying aspect to all of this and it is deception. Better services to Maori and a treaty led model were the primary driver for the changes. However the only published article about the Scope made absolutely clear that embedding gender ideology into midwifery was an important purpose of this work. There was however not one reference to this objective in any of the written materials supplied to midwives and interested others by the Council as the development of the scope took place. (A number of submissions noted the likely intent of the removing the word woman was for this purpose and there were many objections (and a few supportive comments in the feedback). https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/01-03-2024/cutting-through-the-noise-why-whanau-centred-midwifery-is-not-erasing-women So apparently decolonisation also equates to gender theory's implementation by subterfuge.
A Midwifery Council that seeks to "centre" whanau, rather than the individual woman about to give birth.
Are they baddies?
You bet!
This is a nuanced subject and I confess that I don't know the details of the argument. However it is true that Maori see pregnancy, birth and reproduction as something affecting the whanau as a whole as well as the mother to be. Hence the word "hapu" can mean either "pregnant" or "clan" and "whanau" means both "family" and "to give birth". As European society has become more individualistic it has concentrated focus on the woman herself. There is a wisdom which consists of recognising and respecting both the individual and communal aspects.
Do baddies support the erasure of women? Yes, I'm afraid they do.
I don't disagree that most issues involve individual and communitarian aspects and the trick is in getting the right balance. However:
1) The new Scope is not for Maori women, but for all women, in all pregnancies.
2) How about the counterfactual? In general people see pregnancy, birth and reproduction as something that has no impact on others. I suggest that there is likely etymology in all cultures that links childbirth and family creation and hopefully most women are pregnant in context that includes those who care for and about them. Surely that does not mean any should have to defer to family patriarchs or comply with the diktat of an assumed "happy family" as the gazetted scope now provides for.) https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2024-gs1575
3) If women do not have agency in pregnancy and childbirth where else should the law and regulations demand that they defer? Relationship choices? Jobs? Where to live? Whether to continue a pregnancy? This is a very big wedge that supposed "feminists" are responsible for.
4) The Midwifery Council now report that it is whanau who have ultrasounds. "Informed consent is the process of clearly exchanging information so that whanau can make an informed decision about their healthcare options, including the option of declining the treatment, procedure or intervention. (Adding helpfully) It is important to make sure that the person does not feel that they have been coerced at all." https://www.midwiferycouncil.health.nz/common/Uploaded%20files/eMidpoint/eMidpoint%20August%202024.pdfultrasounds
That this has been allowed to stand, and has received vociferous support from people purporting to have the interests of women at heart, confirms just how many baddies there now are in our society - as well as the urgent necessity of confronting them.
Very true! And thanks! While the Scope is apparently still in the hands of the Regulatory Review Select Committee the "baddies" are continuing to develop the education/training and professional advice that are subsidiary to the Scope. The outcome hangs in the balance - whether the regulators have the desire to push back on this. Public opinion is not in favour of the "baddies" that is for sure so it is a relatively risk free push-back should they choose it.
I'm an American who lived, and worked in NZ, and graduated with a History degree from Vic. I have to agree with Chris Trotter that equality before the law, and before one's fellow citizens, is the way to go.
American slaves were virtually all captured in West Africa by other West Africans and sold to European and American slave traders, survived the ungodly awful "Middle Passage," and were sold as property into lifetime and inheritable servitude, often as field labourers in truly ungodly working conditions. After the American Civil War and today, I believe nearly all of their descendants want equality before the law and equal opportunity--and an accurate memory of their history as property before the Civil War and then for generations after the war as 3rd rate citizens and, in many cases for those who remained in the South, what was in effect, serfdom.
As I understand the NZ history and contemporary situation, the Maori people certainly did lose their country (or tribal countries?) to British imperialism and suffered considerable discrimination. But their history is much more a parallel with that of the Indigenous People (Indians) of America who lost their tribal independence and were forced to acclimate to the American imperial invaders of their lands.
I hope the Maori people in Aotearoa-New Zealand, while never forgetting their history, come to aspire to equality of opportunity and colour-blind citizenship.
Alan, it is more the case that the people of Aotearoa aspire to preserve their own communities under the principles of rangatiratanga. "Colour blind citizenship" does not mean a lot to them. With all due respect to the principle, I doubt that it means much to anyone. There is an assumption in some quarters that if you give Maori "citizenship" and "equality before the law" while eliminating their identity as Maori living in community, they will be happy. Why should they be? Are European New Zealanders happy with their status as anonymous and isolated individual citizens "equal before the law"? I would suggest that while a privileged minority may be, the majority are not. Should Maori sacrifice their birthright for a mess of colonialist pottage? Or should Pakeha aspire to the same rights privileges and values of Maori living under rangatiratanga?
Thanks, Geoff. Good points. I didn't mean to imply that Maori should somehow cease being Maori, any more than, in America, Cherokee, or Pueblo, or Pueblo people should cease thinking of themselves in those terms. But if an individual Maori wishes to work or live in a largely pakeha workplace or community, that should be her or his prerogative--while probably wishing to maintain at least a degree of his or her Maori identity. And, if a Maori person, or family, wishes to live in a Maori community, as many Indigenous People in North America (the US and Canada) choose to live in traditional tribal communities on Reserves, then well and good. And that person should be able to also participate in the larger national and international activities of Aotearoa New Zealand insofar as they may want to.
I must spend a little time, when time permits, investigating rangatiratanga.
I think all the Woke leftie losers you are referring to are better compared to Donald Trump, in that they are poor losers who cant believe or accept that they lost the last election. The mainstream Media is trying to look more professional now by being more even-handed, but the atmosphere is still heavily polarized by the Left who are being extremely negative and petulant. Luckily that doesnt worry the Coalition in power.
Mark, you have put your finger on one of the key differences between rangatiratanga and the pseudo-democratic Westminster system in which one group "win" an election and another group "lose". "We won, you lost, eat that" in the immortal words of Sir Michael Cullen. That is not democracy. It is political stupidity. Politics as a zero sum game exposes another fatal flaw in the system, which is that the general public never really knows who has "won" an election. They have to take it on trust. Thus opening the way to electoral fraud or, what is just as bad, false allegations of electoral fraud and from that the very real risk of civil war. Fortunately rangatiratanga suffers from neither of these deficiencies. It is an open and transparent system without winners and losers. That is why we will be sticking with rangatiratanga regardless of the outcome of Mr Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill.
Do baddies denounce and undermine faith in democratic elections? Yes, I'm afraid they do.
Geoff you refer to being anonymous, but that appears to be part of democracy, because voting is anonymous. I noticed when our Council voted about Maori wards recently, the room was filled with pro-Maori activists and supporters, with more outside, and the voting is open and transparent. I couldnt help thinking that those councillors are under a lot of pressure to vote yes, and other ratepayers who might disagree are busy at work. Is there any value in anonymous voting, so people can be honest without external pressure?
Voting is not and could not be anonymous in local council or parliamentary assemblies. It is unthinkable that you could vote for a member of parliament or a councilor and then have no idea how he or she exercised the power that has been given. It is only the "ordinary citizen" who remains anonymous (and essentially powerless) under the Westminster system. Under rangatiratanga there is no such distinction between "leader" and "ordinary" members of the hapu. Everyone has a real personal identity and everyone's opinions are openly held and expressed. Anonymity and the secret ballot are not "part of democracy". They are relatively recent innovations with disadvantages which far exceed any perceived advantages they may bring to the political process.
How big a group of people can rangatiratanga include ? If you have more than 500 people it becomes hard to hear everybodys opinion, and if you have more than 1,000 people it becomes hard to remember everyones name. I went to a high school with 1,000 people so I know. Do we NZers need to be in 5,000 separate tribes of 1000 for this to work ? That is why I think democracy evolved. But there is plenty to not like about it. That is why I think self determination is more realistic.
Rangatiratanga works through levels from whanau through hapu to iwi, and personal connections are established and maintained at every level. In your high school you probably knew all the members of your class, some better than others, and your teachers would have known all their students. Your teachers would all be known to each other and to the principal. The principal would have known the principals of neighbouring schools, and so on. A school is not a democracy as rangatiratanga is, but it does illustrate the point that you do not need to know five hundred or more people to function effectively within rangatiratanga, and in any case one of the virtues of rangatiratanga is that every hui gives you opportunities to meet and get to know the people who make up your own community.
Chris, thanks for an interesting commentary. Certainly agreeing with your penultimate paragraph. If you don't mind me saying that despite your leftwing label, you often now appear to be expressing what might be seen as rightwing views. Am just reminded of Elon Musk's stated yearning for "centrist" politics and politicians. Wouldn't that be wonderful to accept the reality that not everything is polarised and that sometimes traditionally left or right views, or some mix make the best sense in the circumstances. Back to your commentary, the Nazis with their death's head caps were not National "Socialists" for no reason. Passionate Socialism inevitably morphs into Fascism, just as we're experiencing even here in little old NZ with our social(ist) justice warriors, mass psychotic, DEI "decolonists", on local councils, in academia, the judiciary and throughout leadership of most of our institutions.
I think lots of people are just overdramatising things. That's obviously true of Te Pati Maori, but right-wing sites are also full of people carrying on about Maori being lazy, entitled, having it coming to them, neolithic, former cannibals, etc. Seymour has rarked up the latter effectively, and TPM have little to offer but more histrionics. But I assume Seymour's rhetoric is really about carving off some of the right-wing vote from National, to benefit ACT in 2026: nothing really to do with human rights or equality. He's a consummate politician who's outsmarting the other lot. But I was struck by Chris's adducing the precedent of deploying tikanga in the last appeal concerning Peter Ellis. I'd have thought it was helpful in the latter case - ironically one where no-one was actually Maori, as far as I know. There, everything had dragged out for decades till Ellis died, and the case went ahead out of concern for his family, or whanau - whereas otherwise his demise would have voided the proceedings? After all, that case back in the '90s manifested hysteria of another kind.
What the Ellis case demonstrated, in my opinion, Joanne, was the repeated and unforgiveable failure of the New Zealand judiciary to recognise and correct a profound injustice.
Time after time, judges were presented with the opportunity to set Ellis free, and time after time, they upheld the original verdict. The contrast with the behaviour of other judiciaries in relation to the "Satanic Abuse" moral panic is a sharp one.
Only after Ellis had died was action taken by our Supreme Court, and even then it was to use his case to smuggle "Tikanga Maori" into the New Zealand legal system.
Baddies? You be the judge.
I agree that the Ellis case represented a 'profound injustice'. I assumed when tikanga was invoked, it was to give the judges a reason continue the case after Ellis's death, rather than as an excuse to introduce tikanga per se. Tikanga was a resource after the years of injustice perpetrated by the mainstream justice system. Perhaps someone knows whether there was any other way for the case to continue legally after the appellant's death?
Mr Trotter knows that those on the colonialist side of the argument are not "colour blind". Some of them may be without racial bias or prejudice but regrettably a large number are not.
He should also know that the nationalist cause comprises Maori, Pakeha and others and that its ultimate goal is to restore the rights of our communities which have suffered abuse and degradation through two centuries of colonialist rule. We are engaged in a constitutional struggle in which a pseudo-democratic neo-liberal system based on a mass of isolated and anonymous "citizens" subject to the rule of financial and political elites confronts organic communities which function under the genuinely democratic principles of rangatiratanga.
Mr Trotter is a declared monarchist. That is to say that he believes that New Zealand's head of state should remain always an unelected person of British descent. So much for his professions of respect for "non-racial democracy". Trotter asks "Are we the baddies?". The straight answer would be "Yes Mr Trotter, unfortunately you are the baddies".
Do baddies subordinate the individual to the group? Yes, I'm afraid they do. That's why most people call them fascists.
I understand rangatiratanga to mean self-determination, and I think it is a great idea, but can it really govern millions of people? Every civilized country I can think of is using democracy to govern, maybe because Tribalism only works for smaller numbers of people. I think less people is easier to govern, whatever system you use. When populations reach millions, most of those people are anonymous. Sorry to disappoint you. How do you plan to stop people being anonymous ?
Rangatiratanga is a natural system of governance and as such it is profoundly democratic. . "Self-determination" is more accurately translated as "mana motuhake" which is closely associated with rangatiratanga. Rangatiratanga has features that are not found in the Westminster system such as self chosen constituencies of variable size (the hapu), mutual responsibilities of rangatira and followers and direct and continuous accountability of rangatira to the members of their hapu. All these features are scalable with modern technology. So rangatiratanga can extend to a population of 5 million, 50 million or 500 million. You are right of course, that is only possible if the mass gives up their anonymity. The fact is that if you want to effectively participate in a genuine democracy you cannot be anonymous. No politician can be anonymous and no citizen should be anonymous. We can't stop people from being anonymous but together we can give them the opportunity to express a genuine individual identity under rangatiratanga.
I have Maori friends who enjoy smoking tobacco. Does that mean they cant be nationalists unless they stop smoking ?
Tawhiao Te Wherowhero proscribed alcohol in the 1860's, and all drugs are prohibited on most marae these days. There are those in the present government who are promoting the interests of the tobacco trade, and the government profits from the trade, while there are victims among Pakeha as well as Maori, some of them very close to me as it happens. So this is an issue over which tangata motu are in conflict with the tobacco trade and the colonialist regime. However you cannot deduce someone's political position from their use or non-use of tobacco or any other drug.
It is sensible to prohibit drugs on the marae, but dont you think the best solution for tobacco is to grow our own, and not be involved in the tobacco trade or the colonialist regime, cos it is only a plant, and the same goes for medicinal cannabis.
This morning I lost a dear friend. She was beautiful. Truly beautiful. She started smoking as a fourteen year old girl. She stopped when it was too late. Some people would say that she made her own choices. God does not say that. God tells us to love one another even if it causes us more pain than the soul can bear. Can you understand that?
I dont think many people choose to be anonymous, except maybe celebrities, so what do people have to give up to stop being anonymous? I can tell other people who I voted for, and I am also a club member, so am I considered not anonymous? You can tell that I am a bit confused by what it takes to be anonymous, or not. Winston Peters and Shane Jones are not anonymous, so are they the bad guys ?
So what role should central Govt play? I voted against Labour, to have less govt influence, but that means less tobacco controls, which is ok by me.
Everybody arrived by boat, so "Colonists" includes Maori tribes. Some of the people of which have suffered from culture shock from being suddenly exposed to a more advanced society with different values and experiences. Such cultural disorientation is not uncommon with the advance of civilisation over the ages, typically by "colonisation". However the ability to integrate, embrace and adopt the new culture quickly, fully and even surpassingly, particularly its more advanced methods and modes of thought, is what shows the mettle of a people.
Colonists are those who immigrated to New Zealand and engaged in the process of creating the Colony of New Zealand as a Realm of the British Crown. Therefore no Maori could have been a colonist.
A colonialist, on the other hand, is one who gives allegiance to the British sovereign and supports the continuation of the New Zealand state as a realm of the British Crown. For a range of reasons individual Maori may choose to be colonialist, but in general in Aotearoa we can be either tangata motu (nationalist) or colonialist. That choice is an expression of political philosophy and has nothing to do with race.
Maori will not accept your designation of European society as "more advanced" than our own, or the ability to "adopt" European culture as evidence of their mettle as a people. Some aspects of European culture have been taken up, and others (attitudes towards the whenua, hapori, alcohol, tobacco and other drugs and so on) have been emphatically rejected by tangata motu. That is as it should be.
Please check the definition. A country that sends settlers to a place and establishes political control over it. Well yes, you are technically correct, as the Polynesians that arrived were of no known country and certainly didn't have the wherewithal to establish political control.
"Superficially, it is the promoters of decolonisation and indigenisation who most resemble the Northern abolitionists". Yes, on one level - on another they resemble the southern slaveholders as slavery was practiced in pre-European New Zealand.
The superficiality consists in trying to equate the situation in Aotearoa in 2024 with that of the United States in 1861. An interesting exercise in the display of mental agility but ultimately pointless.
David, I assume you are trying to suggest that Maori were slave owners in pre-European times and remain of the same slave owning mindset today. That sounds just a little bit racist. Also rather ignorant. Slavery takes different forms in different social orders. When Christians talk of being "slaves to Christ" they don't mean to say that Christ has them in leg irons and under the lash. Slavery in Maori society was a different phenomenon to that in the US, and even in the US slavery took various forms. So stop this silliness. If you want to talk about slavery, then do so intelligently. If you want to talk about the constitutional systems for Aotearoa, then likewise, do so intelligently.
Do baddies defend slavery? Yes, I'm afraid they do.
I agree it is an exercise in historical gymnastics but it is true slavery existed in a form in Maori society (some say a comparison to prisoners of war is more apt than to Atlantic slaves). Of course Maori don't have the same mindset today.
Actually I was very shocked by this article and found it worryingly anti-Māori and te Tiriti, which I believe makes Aotearoa a better place. I’m still pondering on why it was disturbing to me that a left-wing commentator could write like this. Fundamentally I think it comes down to the baddies (and goodies) argument which is too black and white when all of these issues are far more nuanced. I have enjoyed earlier articles written by you Chris and have found them thought provoking and good to read. I dont really want to read pro te Tiriti referendum arguments on a democracy project Substack because I’m happy to continue with our existing constitutional arrangements which include te Tiriti. I have linked this to democracy because I support the way we as a nation have evolved our democratic processes, and now see referenda like the one proposed by Act to be divisive and misleading and ultimately self-serving. So, not democratic at all!
Perhaps you found the post disturbing, Meredith, because the idea that it is possible to hold left-wing views and yet remain unconvinced by the current orthodox interpretation of te Tiriti o Waitangi is, for you, a novel one.
This intuition of mine is reinforced by your comment that you don't want to read arguments with which you disagree. A great pity, since engaging with the ideas of those who hold differing viewpoints is critical to the democracy you say you support. Although, your definition of democracy is not the definition preferred by most political scientists.
You will, I hope, forgive me for pointing out that your assertion that democratic mechanisms, like the referendum, somehow cease to be democratic when they are used to resolve an issue you would rather not see debated, does not strike me as being very "nuanced".
I would also point out that te Tiriti is not a formal element of New Zealand's constitution, and cannot become one unless and until its precise meaning, and the principles animating it, are agreed upon by the New Zealand people.
Debate and discussion are good things, Meredith, avoiding them, or, worse still attempting to prevent them, is not a good thing. History reveals that those who begin by censoring and suppressing the expression of views opposed to their own, almost always move on to much worse violations of human rights. They end up doing things that turn them into very bad baddies indeed.
"I dont really want to read pro te Tiriti referendum arguments"
Have you really even thought critically about this? About the implications of systemic and institutionalised political and legal authority grounded in ethnic difference?
The Ardern government sought to strengthen and formalise group ethnicity as a political and legal entity; appallingly they refused to disclose their intentions to the people at the time of the 2020 election. That "divisive and misleading" (to say nothing of antidemocratic) agenda is, to a significant degree, why we are where we are. Perhaps it, the referendum, really is all a part of how "we as a nation have evolved our democratic processes". Perhaps it's democracy itself that you're afraid of?
Let the people speak!
Thanks David and Chris for your feedback on my comments. It’s clear we have vastly different views and experiences. I’m not going to defend my views any further or criticise you for yours. My final point is that referenda are now very crude methods to determine big, complex issues. A one sentence statement with a yes or no, no longer does justice to big issues imho. Hence my negative views on referenda which I believe I’m allowed to hold.
I seriously doubt, Meredith, that we stand very far apart on most issues. The only way to discover the degree of philosophical commonality between yourself and others, however, is to engage with them. Try reading Plato's "Republic" - if only to learn how discussing, arguing about, and debating big ideas makes you wiser.
True thinking is difficult. One way is to, as honestly as you can, create opposing avatars in your imagination and allow them to have it out.
Or you can have that contest with real people but you have to be prepared to humbly, and genuinely, listen and to speak the truth - not many can really do that either. Too often words are simply weapons aimed at supporting a prior, emotionally or ideologically derived position. Or you can simply refuse to have the discussion at all. Then what?
“Life is suffering
Love is the desire to see unnecessary suffering ameliorated
Truth is the handmaiden of love
Dialogue is the pathway to truth
Humility is recognition of personal insufficiency and the willingness to learn
To learn is to die voluntarily and be born again, in great ways and small
So speech must be untrammeled
So that dialogue can take place
So that we can all humbly learn
So that truth can serve love
So that suffering can be ameliorated
So that we can all stumble forward to the Kingdom of God”
― Jordan B. Peterson
On one level when Chris Trotter suggests that we should be “colour blind” he is saying that we should be without racial bias. This is how most of us would interpret his metaphor and I would have no problem with that. But on another level he is implying that we should take on the disability of colour blindness as an obstinate refusal to see the aroha, beauty and vibrancy of Maori living as Maori.
There are those in the political establishment who feel threatened by Maoritanga, and not without reason. As well as serving as a cultural taonga independently of all other political systems or cultures, Maoritanga was the line of defence against colonialism, and remains the only real alternative to the complete triumph of neo-liberalism.
Then there are those who have no such fears of Maoritanga, but who harbour a feeling that Maori have something that non-Maori are missing out on. The colour, the warmth, and the security of a collective whanau and hapu-based culture of which non-Maori may have little experience. So the first group are working actively to arouse the second against Maori. In other words the ACT party is employing the politics of envy directly against Maori and indirectly against Pakeha, because if their Treaty Principles project were to succeed Pakeha would stand to lose even more than Maori.
From the point of view of the Crown the Treaty Principles Bill in concert with the “colour blind” principle would have the effect of making Maori into mere nondescript citizens rather than Maori. A hundred years ago the idea of being a New Zealand citizen had wide appeal. So much so that many Maori were prepared to give their lives in defence of the empire. That is no longer the case. Citizenship in New Zealand has been devalued and degraded over the past forty years. New Zealand is no longer a nation defined by a commitment to the common good. Citizenship in neo-liberal New Zealand means “every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost”, the devil in this case being the forces of global capitalism.
Are Maori going to trade rangatiratanga for this mess of colonialist pottage? I doubt it. You don't need to be colour blind. You do need to have aroha. I believe that most Pakeha and other non-Maori can manage that very well.
It's a real toss-up, Geoff, as to which line of argument here is the more offensive: your "noble savage" characterisation of pre-European Maori culture, as inaccurate as it is condescending; or, your claim that the neo-tribal capitalism of the Iwi Leaders Group is in anyway distinguishable from the neo-liberal capitalism that reversed the rapidly rising living standards enjoyed by Maori in the 1970s and early-1980s.
Sociologically, those most deeply immersed in any culture tend to be those best educated in its traditions. In contemporary New Zealand, it is the rapidly growing Maori middle-class which enjoys the most ready access to that sort of cultural education.
These folk are enjoying the best of both worlds, Maori and Pakeha - and good luck to them! Certainly, I do not believe they would thank you, if your romanticised version of pre-contact Te Ao Maori was somehow restored.
Maori horizons, like those of all "non-descript" New Zealand citizens, have grown too wide for them to be herded into the cramped little museum you are offering as Aotearoa-New Zealand's future.
Chris, where did you get the "noble savage" idea from? Not from me. Did I ever mention the Iwi Leaders Group? I did not. Why do you think that only middle class Maori are immersed in Maoritanga? They may be the ones that you see in the media, and we see them in and around the village, doing good work, taking a lead on many issues, but the younger generation from ordinary working class whanau take to Maoritanga with an enthusiasm which is absolutely inspiring. This is no "cramped little museum" Chris. It is a lively vibrant community. If you find that offensive it is because you have never taken the trouble to see how Maori live in a traditional setting or listen to how they think. But let's get this straight. We are not talking about "pre-contact Te Ao Maori". We are talking about what actually exists after two centuries of interaction with European cultures. Like some others you are too dismissive of what you do not understand and have no desire to understand.
Identify this cultural Shangri-La, Geoff. Give us a town, a suburb, a street, something solid and real that we can all check. No offence, but you sound like a salesman - let us examine your product.
You won't be welcome here Chris while you are taking that offensive, sarcastic attitude. You want to check us out? You want to "examine our product"? You and a team of your mates? Well, you are making yourself an example of everything that is wrong about colonialism. Get yourself a bit of humility, then come back to me privately and I will invite you onto my land.
You are right of course. Trust your instincts and failing that look how those with views like some around influenced the Voice Referendum and Brexit
Kia ora Meredith. It was unfortunate that Chris Trotter decided to frame this debate in terms of "baddies" versus "goodies". That is divisive from the get go, and it would seem that Maori who take a certain view of te Tiriti are being categorized as the "baddies", while the ACT party and their supposedly "colour blind" associates are the "goodies". In the many short comments that Chris has tacked on beneath my own he seems to be implying that I in particular am one of those "baddies". In such a political climate a referendum may not have good outcomes. Despite that, I have no fears about the referendum, in the unlikely event that it was to proceed. If passed in the House of Parliament and approved by a referendum, the bill will alter the course of government and the Crown, but it will not change the ways in which Maori live in community except to make them more self-reliant and more conscious of their own mana motuhake. Then the task for Pakeha of good faith will be to find new ways of relating directly to Maori communities rather than relying on the Crown to do that on their behalf. That also may have good long-term outcomes. Since the first contacts between peoples Maori have always made room for Pakeha, as is evidenced by the many Maori who are of mixed descent. The Crown on the other hand has had a much more problematic attitude towards Maori which I don't need to expand upon here because these days we are all pretty familiar with the history.
Have just assumed that all this is a political beat-up. Last govt screwed up the 3 Waters campaign by advocating co-governance, and then we had Batchelor, Jordan Williams (with Groundswell) and ACT seizing their chance to rark up anti-Maori sentiment. Hobson's Pledge and Muriel Newman's lot also let rip. Then Te Pati Maori went in to bat with extreme rhetoric and aggravated the situation. The referendum may well fly, however, as people tend to get the warm fuzzies about referenda and support them. I don't mind what anyone writes on here, but I think this is about party politics, and both Labour and National have been outflanked. Many centrist types are upset about the whole thing, but I think we're being played.
Chris Trotter wrote: "The profoundly undemocratic nature of the fire-eaters’ opposition was illustrated by their vehement objections to the Act Party’s policy of holding a binding referendum to entrench, or not, the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi."
Opposition to the proposed referendum comes from a number of quarters, with different concerns that have nothing to do with opposition to democracy. Most commonly people are saying that it is inappropriate to have a referendum to decide the proper interpretation of a legal instrument
But let us assume that you do that. If the proposal fails, nothing is gained. If it passes by a small margin it merely shows that society is seriously divided. If it passes by a comfortable margin, Maori will hold to their own interpretation of Te Tiriti regardless. They will continue to believe that the words "kawana", "rangatira", "kawanatanga" and "rangatiratanga" have the same meaning in Te Tiriti as they do in Te Paipera Tapu. They will continue to hold to rangatiratanga and they will simply see the referendum result as another case of deceit and duplicity from those who support the authority of the British Crown in New Zealand.
You could have a referendum to declare that red is green and green is red, and if your propaganda machine was sufficiently well oiled the proposal might pass, but unless it passed unanimously you would have chaos at the traffic lights the morning after.
If you want the referendum, then go for it. But first you should think about exactly what benefits it might bring you.
Do baddies refuse to accept and abide by the result of a binding referendum? Yes, I'm afraid they do. (That's when they're not indulging in argument ad absurdum.)
Yes....so true!