Proceeding Without The People: Labour’s Gift To The Right.

77
2009

BY THE SECOND HALF of 2022 the right-wing assault on the Treaty policies of the Left will be raging.

At the level of local government, candidates known to support the Government’s Three Waters scheme will be targeted for electoral destruction. The local government elections will be repurposed as a national referendum on the Three Waters proposal. If its supporters are voted out, then the Government will face increasingly angry demands for the scheme’s abandonment.

On the broader political front, NZ First, finally free of the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation, will be terrifying rural and provincial audiences with tales of rampant, government-supported Māori separatism hellbent on destroying New Zealand democracy.

With contrapuntal precision, Act’s David Seymour will be reassuring the people Winston Peters has been terrifying that the price of Act’s participation in any coalition government of the Right will be the effective nullification of the Treaty of Waitangi.

National, with less venom and vitriol than its potential allies, will, nevertheless, have re-positioned itself on Treaty issues. Christopher Luxon’s argument will be that what “normal” New Zealanders want more than anything in 2023 is a restoration of “social cohesion”. National’s position will be that social cohesion is impossible while three of New Zealand’s parliamentary parties are promoting racially-charged and undemocratic policies calculated to drive New Zealanders apart.

Labour’s, the Greens’ and the Māori Party’s ability to successfully counter the Right’s attack will be fatally undermined by its deafening silence on the key issue of whether or not it they are willing to obtain formal popular authorisation for their radical (some would say revolutionary) proposals.

To date, however, the te Tiriti-driven policies and plans of all three left-wing parties offer no opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have their say on the profound constitutional changes being promoted.

The Left’s refusal to abide by the long-established conventions for validating and effecting significant constitutional change in New Zealand will leave them wide open to the charge that they are conspiring to brush aside their country’s democratic traditions.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The most damaging aspect of the Right’s charge will be that it is true.

The te Tiriti-driven constitutional transformation proposed by the parties of the Left makes no provision for popular ratification. The radical changes proposed – like Three Waters – will either be imposed by statute, or achieved by judicial fiat. No heed will be given to the venerable notion that it is unacceptable for a government in possession of a temporary parliamentary majority to fundamentally change the rules of the political game. The convention that significant constitutional reform – like altering the way parliamentarians are elected – must be put to a referendum, will simply be over-ridden.

Labour and the Greens have “form” in this regard.

The Labour-led government of Helen Clark established the New Zealand Supreme Court and abolished the right of New Zealanders to appeal to the Privy Council in London by simply passing a law to that effect. In spite of the radical reformation of the New Zealand judiciary proposed by the law’s supporters, New Zealanders were given no opportunity to vote the reforms up or down.

Labour’s parliamentary caucus has not grown any more supportive of New Zealand’s democratic political culture in the years since the Supreme Court Bill was came into force in October 2003. Indeed, the venomous scorn poured upon the defenders of freedom of expression by some Labour and Green MPs strongly suggests that the rights and freedoms granted to all New Zealanders by the Bill of Rights Act (and, for that matter, the Treaty of Waitangi) are regarded as irritating obstacles to the imposition of a new te Tiriti-based political order.

The process adopted by the Clark Government in relation to the Supreme Court Act is, however, instructive.

According to the Department of Courts own historical summary:

The issue re-emerged in early 2000, when the Labour/Alliance Government agreed to review the role of the Privy Council. In December 2000 Cabinet approved the release of a discussion paper entitled Reshaping New Zealand’s Appeal Structure. It invited public comment on three options to replace the Privy Council. Submissions were evenly divided on whether appeals to the Privy Council should be abolished or retained. There was a clear consensus however that if appeals to the Privy Council ended, a replacement stand-alone court sitting above the Court of Appeal should be established. 

Further public consultation culminated in the report of a Ministerial Advisory Group. This formed the basis of a Supreme Court Bill. The bill was introduced in 2002, and passed by Parliament on 14 October 2003. The Act came into force on 1 January 2004, officially establishing the Supreme Court, and at the same time ending appeals to the Privy Council in relation to all decisions of New Zealand courts made after 31 December 2003. 

Remember that sequence: A “discussion paper” is released. Public “comment” is invited. In spite of expert opinion being “evenly divided”, “further public consultation” takes place. Eventually, a “Ministerial Advisory Group” presents a report. This report becomes a government bill. Public submissions on the bill are invited by a Select Committee of the House. The shape of the bill remains essentially unchanged. Despite strong representations from four of the seven parties represented in Parliament, the call for a referendum is rejected. The bill passes, 63 votes (Labour, Greens, Progressives) in favour, 57 votes (National, NZ First, Act, United Future) against.

That is how easily our constitution can be changed – if a government is sufficiently resolute in its determination to do so.

 

77 COMMENTS

  1. Don’t worry Chris, 3 Waters will not become law as it currently stands, if it does pass into law, it will be a different beast and 50/50 Maori/Iwi governess will be dropped!
    One thing Jacinda cannot abide, is being unpopular and this, in its current form, would make her country wide unpopular….so never going to happen as it currently stands.
    PS
    Hasn’t it been put on back burner?, on a slow simmer, since Labours internal polling and focus groups outcomes scared the beejeezus out of the Labour top table?

  2. Chris. Agree 100% . I’m not sure how many NZ’ers are aware of what the Ardern govt is up to here, or of it’s implications, but I could go out and vote right for the first time ever – just when I’d more or less decided not to vote again. Don’t like the Nat candidate and I loathe Luxon, but that’s how it is. Cheers.

    • Fair point Snow White.
      My recommendation is to not let any party ‘own’ you. Vote on the issues and be as fickle as you please.
      I know lot’s of people who are ‘tribal Labour’ and I suppose a few who are lifelong Nat voters although the Nats are quieter about it. It’s a mistake because politics isn’t a football game where you can be a Hurricanes fan win or lose, thick or thin. Vote for whatever policies work for you, your family and New Zealand

      • I must admit considering how the nats treat pensioners and the sick why greypower continues to support them….mind you working class tories have always puzzled me too.

    • Agreed, Snow White. Despite being a lifelong Lefty, I will never again vote for them. I didn’t at the 2020 election, either. I hear tell that NZF and Winston will be contesting the next election: they might well garner enough electoral support to change the government. Surely Peters wouldn’t put Labour into government again?

      • D’ Esterre I voted ‘ right ‘ in the last WCC mayoral election, and will likely do so again, for Andy Foster has a solid track record on environmental issues, and the only other candidate I’m aware of appears to pose like a pin up the way the Green femmes are wont to, and I dumped the Greens permanently, forever, after their disgusting racist contributions to the Auckland Muslim vigil, and half of them seem to be juvenile sex obsessives – as well as racist- or both.

        I cannot remember when I last voted Labour, but one thing I do believe is that there is no one in their ranks who has ever been acquainted with the debilitating effects of poverty, so they can go to Hades too.

        I previously voted Values, and have been interested in TOP mainly because of their high calibre candidates. On the whole I’ve voted for candidates, rather than parties, even when I knew it might be a “wasted” vote, but there’s never been a party good enough for me.

        I voted the NZFirst candidate in error at the last general election, because the polling booth was crappy, with queues outside in the hot sun, and I wanted to get in and out as quickly as I could. As I cannot trust myself not to err again, perhaps I should not vote again.

        Peters won’t put Labour in again, he’s been snipping at them lately, and NZ First doesn’t have the best track record the way it treats its own ladies. I have respected Winston Peters as an elder statesman, and as one of the best performers in Parliament, and for wearing a suit as well as any Italian, but that’s not quite enough for me.

        If I liked the Nat candidate I might be able to vote National, but I don’t, so I won’t, and most of the Nats are so awful that they make mediocre look enticing, and that’s not good enough either. My dad said Social Credit wasn’t feasible, the Maori Party are off the planet, and that just leaves Mana, who had good social policies, but can be a bit racist too, and I’m bone weary of divisive racist issues.

        All these voters in search of a party – the buggers may have to introduce compulsory voting, but if need be I can spoil my ballot paper and who’s to know ?

        • Snow White: with regard to the upcoming local elections, it looks as if there’ll be a few independent candidates, at least for the mayoralty, and for some wards as well. I’ll be voting for independents: nobody with any party affiliation will get a look-in, as far as I’m concerned.

          I’m not sure whether Foster will be standing again; he won’t be getting my vote if he does. Nor will that Green party candidate, on account of, as I said above, I’ve sworn off voting for anybody from a political party.

          Maybe there’ll be a plethora of independent candidates to vote for at the next general election? One can but hope: I certainly won’t be voting for the Natz: Luxon isn’t to my taste, being too milquetoast. In truth, I’d have preferred Collins, though even she had been beaten down by the woke media in recent times.

          What is it with our pollies? Too timid by half: say what you think robustly. You might be surprised at how the polls react. Where’s Lavrov when we need him? I laughed at how he set up Liz Truss for a fall. And boy! did she have it coming….

          • I’ll probably vote Foster, although there’s one sitting councillor, white male, Sean, lawyer, who looks good, but it’s unclear who’s running for mayor, and I’m surprised that anyone would want to. Andy Foster is not exactly charismatic, but he deserves a medal for putting up with a quarrelsome coterie, and he seems to be a decent man, and there’s a lot to be said for being decent nowadays.

            Andy Foster was involved with saving the Wellington Town Belt from when he first came onto Council, and back in 1987 when developers initially tried to commercially exploit it, the WCC was in bed with the developers; the developers reared their greedy heads again in 1994, and could do so again; the continuity of knowledge Foster has is a positive, although Nicola Young’s MP dad was also an active supporter of the city’s green lungs, and local politicians of stature like Fran Wilde,
            seem to be few and far between – there are two or three good women on the WCC, and some better not described at all.

            Luxon is quite repulsive and thinks he’s the cats’ pyjamas; it seems to me that a protege of John Dirty Politics Key can’t be good news for New Zealanders – Luxon’s “ ordinary man” pr stunts were cringingly pathetic -even worse than his big black car scenario, but he’s good for making granny chuckle, bless him.

    • Having followed your imput to this blog I realize what a big call this statement is . I am by inclination a National voter and certainly know how hard it is to see your party stuffed up by poor leadership. I have voted Labour when Helen showed a way to get the country moving again.
      Both major parties rely on those that accept their actions without question and this leads them to some badly thought out policies. that panders to what these people expect .

  3. An excellent analysis Chris. You nailed it with:

    “The most damaging aspect of the Right’s charge will be that it is true.”

    (Although of course few of us are really ‘right’, we’re mostly just antiauthoritarian liberals.)

    As regards the removal of the Privy Council, I thought this was absolutely bonkers at the time because it was a free service, it provided some of the best legal minds in the English speaking world, but most importantly it was truly independent. As we’ve seen with some action in the courts in recent years (here I’m thinking of the Ellis appeals), it’s hard to find a truly independent judiciary in a country where half the population are either related or old school chums. So what was Clark’s motivation other than to populate the supreme court with angry, menopausal feminists? LOL

    • indeed andrew our legal system is a laughing stock…clearly political verdicts like ellis, slap with a wet bus ticket for violent and white collar crime..and endless frivolous litigation making barristers rich

      truly ‘the best justice money can buy’

    • Andrew. Agree about the Privy Council, that was another leap backwards for absolutely no good reason. And ironically I’m pretty sure that the first case New Zealand ever advanced to the Privy Council, was a Maori entity v The Crown, concerning land advanced to the crown for philanthropic purposes, not being correctly returned when the relevant time came.

      I don’t know the purpose for dumping a world class service which we were fortunate enough to be able to avail ourselves of, but if it was Clark, she was seen by some as very controlling, and the Privy Council in London would be well and truly beyond her sphere of influence. I hope it’s not true that Ardern phones her on an almost daily basis.

      • I am pretty sure Margaret Wilson was the culprit for the Privy Council move. I was mystified by the shortsightedness of it at the time. Clarke’s explanation’s at the time proved she had fuck all understanding of the Justice system or the vital role of the Privy Council. Our Justice System is a sick joke as well as an international embarrassment . But despite that it is still streets ahead of the U.S.A. where the majority of the population have no respect for the courts.

        • Shona I raised this with a solicitor yesterday, and they said that the distance from here to London, was likely a deciding factor; I said that there were not that many cases annually ( if any) , and the cases taken to the Privy Council were biggies, and taken when legal avenues here were exhausted. I think that Wilson was a University of Waikato person, and given its seemingly idiosyncratic basis of functioning, that could explain a few things, and in fact it may have had little to do with the New Zealand legal system per se, but been more of a political decision.

      • I rarely agree with you SW. But Helen Clark is one bright lady. She knew exactly what she was doing getting rid of obstacles that would stop her implementing policy the public didn’t like. And National could see the advantage at a later date. Shades of authoritarianism in our democracy.

    • Andrew: “….few of us are really ‘right’…”

      Indeed. I’m irritated by that characterisation being applied to me. I regard myself as a disillusioned former Lefty. I don’t like many right-wing policies, but I sure as hell am alarmed by the current government’s political trajectory.

  4. It is a terrible indictment of the establishment left that voters will be forced to choose between this government’s institution-wrecking wokeism, and ACT’s free-market fundamentalism.

    This government’s crimes against evidence, reason and common sense include:

    – foisting radical gender ideology (“Mates n Dates”) and critical race theory on our children
    – insisting that maatauranga is every bit as valuable and relevant as modern biology, chemistry and physics
    – acquiescing to activist demands that Oranga Tamariki must assign Maaori kids to brown parents (apparently even dysfunctional or abusive Maaori parents are better than white parents).
    – needlessly getting involved in the Ihumatao stoush
    – pushing legislation that would shift the burden of proof onto the defendant in sexual assault cases
    – pushing legislation that could see parents prosecuted for preferring “watch and wait” to “affirmation” of their child’s gender dysphoria (the so-called Conversion Therapy Ban legislation).
    – planning a Maaori ethnostate, and trying to con the public that it’s just a discussion document.

    The deceit and dissembling of the He Puapua agenda is paralleled on a smaller scale by the Conversion Therapy Ban legislation – supposedly about saving gay teenagers from harassment and torture by wicked fundamentalist Christians, but in reality a Trojan Horse for trans ideology.

    • Democracy has to include its Minority and the current situation as the evidence shows isn’t working I wonder why? Should we just accept the current BS of this democracy and carry on as if everything is honky dory?? Or do you believe that we should bring Joe Blogs like yourself along to the Maaori point of view so we can at least limit this anti-Maaori sentiment that plagues our country to these bigoted world view.
      The pakeha have had it their way far too long and are expecting to continue this trend past 2040 the Bicentennial of the founding document of this young country. What’s actually wrong with He Puapua? Too radical for Pakeha to stomach I can safely assume. I bet you only read the parts that you can claim as evil and abhorrent to this democracy. Maaori have a different relation to land and water and what a lot of these writers and comments don’t get is the nuances of this relationship for Maaori view Land and water as their whanau members.

      • Stephen: “What’s actually wrong with He Puapua? Too radical for Pakeha to stomach I can safely assume.”

        It sounds as if you haven’t read it. Here it is. Enjoy!

        https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/He-Puapua.pdf

        I’m guessing that proper read of this document will change your mind.

        “…the nuances of this relationship for Maaori view Land and water as their whanau members.”

        This is animism, a well-known facet of te ao Maori. But what has it to do with democracy?

    • Pope Punctilious II: “This government’s crimes against evidence, reason and common sense include…”

      I think that I’ll print this comment off and wave it around at the pre-election candidates’ meetings. Of course, there’ll doubtless be further crimes between now and the next election. Happen you’ll need to update this list?

  5. There we were back in 2017 celebrating a new, enthusiastic fresh faced leader who uttered magic words like “A transparent govt for all People”. Well, look how it all turned out – once she got the votes required for absolute power, Jacinda and her govt couldn’t give a toss what the people think. And that includes what you have written here. The arrogance is staggering. They have to be voted out at all costs.

  6. The new ‘Republicans!’

    Oliver Cromwell would be proud if he knew where his head and other body parts were.

    A Republic is what they want to establish.
    I reckon the starting gun will be when the Queen dies.

    The preparation work has begun. 3 Waters, the Massive Maori Land Grab by the Department of Conservation. The Maori Health Authority and the devolution of local unelected council officials to lead Statutory Authorities that control valuable Regional Assets.

    This has all been undertaken without proper notice given or any referendum proposed.

    A Republic executed in stealth mode?

    Never let a ‘6’ Crises go to waste!

  7. Labour seem intent on destroying New Zealand’s hard fought for one person one vote democracy and instead want to replace it with a power structure based on race. This wont end well

    • If an alternative power structure is being proposed, it is one based on rights rather than on race This, of course, is not to say that an alternative power structure IS being proposed, but the Maoris are only claiming that to which they believe they have a right to, under the treaty.

  8. All true Mr Trotter.
    Those who are pushing or supporting this unmandated co governance are literally destroying democracy in New Zealand (Aotearoa being a made up name for the North Island).
    No more one person one vote.
    They should be honest.
    The fact they are not honest tells us much about their intent.

  9. I’m not convinced by this article and recent polling evidence – Acts 8% plunge immediately following David Seymour’s word for word copy of Don Brash 2004 “Orewa” speech – suggests that NZ voters have moved on from the “sacred cows” that the article enshrines. I hope I’m right and that we are more mature as a nation and have a more nuanced understanding of our history and the place of Maori governance and participation in shaping our future. Many NZer’s don’t see this as the big bogey man threat that the author does – hopefully enough of us to get the “left” over the line at the next election.

    • “NZ voters have moved on from the “sacred cows”.
      Sacred cows like fundamental principles of democratic participation?
      I’ve no idea what circles you move in, Peter, but from what I see, once people understand the implications of the implementation of He Puapua (helpfully covered in the link from Magit) there will be widespread and overwhelming opposition that would see it’s protagonists, justifiably, away from the levers of power for a very long time. Perhaps Chris is more concerned with that than “co-governance” itself but he is dead right about the abuse of democratic principles and where their abandonment can lead.

      Of course there is the weapon of guilt fostered on the gullible by tax payer propaganda to contend with. The shameless three waters propaganda an indication of how far the government is prepared to go on that front with their lies. Green water coming out of the taps? We have the equal second best drinking water in the world.

      I’m reminded of Chesterton and his metaphorical “Chesterton’s Fence”, one of JFK’s favourites.

      “There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

      • I did read the article and some background on it’s author. What the author does is make the assumption that the way she view’s the world and the benefits she and others like her have received from current settings are universal. Western Democracy has been a big bonus to the majority voting block for at least the last 30 years – it looks great if you’re white and middle class and you get to dictate policies and economic settings that enrich you and your family at the expense of your fellow NZers.
        Western Democracy doesn’t look that great if you’re a voting minority and your economic welfare is completely ignored and the history of your people is one of long-term poverty with no access to significant economic access.
        This obsession with the “constitution” and “democracy” and our “water assets” is just overblown fear mongering. The reality is, that a progressive, forward thinking, liberal democracy should be perfectly capable of handling co-governance.
        It’s something unique in the world and we should be very proud of the direction we are going in as a country.

      • D’Esterre. Government counts on people being too lazy or too indolent to bother reading docs like He PuaPua. I offered Hager’s “ Dirty Politics” all over the place when it came out, and got zilch takers – that’s why little smartarses like Key could get away with talking rubbish about conspiracy theorists, and gullible media believe him.

        He Puapua does need to be widely read, or at least precised, and promulgated or discussed, the constitutional issues are major, and I don’t know whether I can refer to social issues without being dubbed racist.

  10. hear hear. What leftist and the cultural marxists of NZ need to learn is that forcing their beliefs onto kiwis without any democratic process (or at best, a fake process designed to produce their desired result) will only cause further divisions in a country where we already have 2 classes of citizen and government mandated ID which shows our medical information

    • glen lino and gender issues are not ‘left’ repeat it as much as you like it don’t make it so..they are the concerns of urban middle class neo-libs..

      • gagarin Unfortunately, I think you’re right, and younger affluent middle-class mothers in particular, have been captured by some quite pernicious gender ideology, and it starts at pre-school, is fed online, and may be prematurely sexualising young children.

        • I don’t mind people ‘identifying’ but I wanted to be a spitfire pilot at 7(even though they were obsolete) then I wanted to be Captain Scarlet…at 16 I wanted to be Johnny Rotton….life decisions are all good, just not when you’re a child.

      • and they will make life hell for the working class as it is doing atm in the UK/Canada/US.
        When prison warders start handing out condoms to women in prisons, you know that they expect the males who self identify as ‘women’ to kindly rape. And that is happening in the progressive bastion called California. Thanks L/G for this huge pile of shit that you are going to drown women and children in.

    • You are striking out at ‘leftist and the cultural marxists of NZ’ as if you know they or a majority of them are responsible for this debacle. I think that denomination may be too simplistic; that there are others of a different colour involved is for sure. They have either shouldered out the true lefties or marxists or infected them with their nostrums which they swear will cure all known diseases.

    • That article again its an opinion but you like that because the opinion piece is from a part Maaori person that when you look at her picture she actually white as they come. These people are a dime a dozen in our country they’re only Maaori in name their worldview is Pakeha similarly to Act MP David Seymour.

      • Excuse me Stephen, but are you saying that skin tone determines the value of people’s opinions? Mahingarangi Forbes also has pale skin, so should we reject her opinions too?

      • Part Maori? WTF??? Being Maori is if you “IDENTIFY” as Maori. There are no Maori who are not part Maori in their DNA mate. Maori survived as a race ONLY because of intermarriage with pakeha. Read this country’s history and stop relying on revisionist bullshit!

      • Stephen: “…from a part Maaori person…”

        Elizabeth Rata has never revealed her ethnicity: won’t answer questions about it, in fact. That’s because, she says, it’s irrelevant, and gets in the way of her views. What she writes in that article is of fundamental importance, her ethnicity notwithstanding.

    • Thanks Maglt – I read the article and – to me – it was kind of “Don Brash Orewa” for liberals and academics – couched in nice language and “research” and “important institutions” but essentially rejecting the relevance and need for Maori engagement in our policy making. I’ve made a reply to David George – above – on why I don’t agree with this view.
      I do acknowledge David’s point on the potential political backlash and this may be what Chris is emphasizing. But in the end transformative governments have to go against the majority view to improve the lives of citizens. And history is littered with evidence for this.

  11. With Snow White on this. I’ve devoted most of my life to conservation projects working with NGO’s and have always been a green party supporter. I’ll likely vote Act at the next election. The left are so obsessed with identity politics that they’re doing little with regards to climate change and the biodiversity crisis. I honestly believe the right would do a (slightly) better job in this regard…

  12. “Labour and the Greens have “form” in this regard.”
    Yep. Chloe Swarbrick as sole leader of The Green Party specifically aiming for farmer support. For gods sake get rid of shaw and davidson.

  13. This unequal distribution benefits between Pakeha and Maori overall as a group is evident. The direction of power between Pakeha and Maori is historic, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of Aotearoa society which is reflected today. Whiteness itself refers to the specific dimensions
    of racism that serve to elevate Pakeha people over people of color. This definition counters the dominant representation of racism in mainstream education as isolated in discrete behaviors that some individuals may or may not demonstrate, and goes beyond naming specific privileges.

    Whiteness is a location of structural advantage, of race privilege. Second, it is a ‘standpoint,’ a place from which White people look at themselves, at others, and at society. Third, ‘Whiteness’ refers to a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed.

    You do realize that Chris Trotter is a half pie historian that pushes his opinions on his main target market audience the “Pakeha”. He won’t tell you that “Pakeha” his people have only been in these lands for under 182 years by force and assimilation. He won’t tell you that a large percentage of Native forest Fauna, the extinction of native wildlife within that short amount of time was at the hands of his ancestors. He won’t tell you that since the “Pakeha” have been here that our waterways are polluted as fuck. He won’t tell you that the local councils signed off on these so called progressive projects that fucked up the quality of water with disregard to Maori. No Chris likes to pretend that we live in an egalitarian society and that Maori and Pakeha live happily ever after singing KUMBAIYA around a camp fire. He won’t tell you that a very large percentage of his people have anti-Maori sentiments. And he doesn’t understand the nuance’s of Maori relationship with water and land as being a member of their whanau. No Chris likes to think of his people as Victims and characterizes Maori as the angst of their sufferings. I say time for the Govt to put to bed the continue breaches of Article in the T.O.W which the local councils share equal responsibilities. The pandering to right-wing politics that will sell the kitchen sink once they get into power is unforgivable unlike figures in the Labour camp like Nanaia Mahuta who want’s to nationalize our waters for all NZers. The local councils have been giving a free pass to major polluters to fuckup our waterways without having to properly consult with tangatawhenua an obligation breach under the T.O.W. no doubt.

    • So Nanaia wants to nationalize our waters, does she? I’ll refer you to this article, that reports a recent interview with Nanaia:

      https://democracyproject.nz/2022/02/09/graham-adams-three-waters-a-sorry-tale-of-government-deception-and-media-inertia/

      Here’s a very telling extract:
      “Perhaps the most significant question Williams asked was: “Can you absolutely assure us — or will you be putting into legislation — restrictions on paying iwi groups water royalties?”

      Mahuta’s long reply was accurately summed up as: “We have to prevent privatisation. Iwi cannot sell the assets. Iwi care about the long term.

      The only conclusion to be drawn from Mahuta’s evasiveness is that under the new legislation iwi will indeed receive royalties (which are, of course, an attribute of ownership that will be denied to everyone else).”

    • Whatever you’re on, keep it well away from the Children! That’s some seriously mad ravings!

      A whole lot of the so called Maori elite are more white than anything else.

      I know Tamils, Cambodians, Somali’s and so many Indians who have come to NZ and despite the oppressive whiteness that abounds to crush the other, they’ve all been able to succeed, raise families and make a wonderful contribution to NZ.

      Maybe they’re doing it wrong as apps they shouldn’t be able to thrive under the heavy weight of all that whiteness…

    • Define half pie historian?? You mean someone who is educated, qualified and has researched and written respected books on the history of this country?
      A writer whose research is second to none?
      What a cheek eh? chronicling the history of the majority of New Zealand’s people.
      My family has been here for 190 years come next year and they were pre- treaty but far from the first european settlers.
      182 years!?? You don’t know what you are talking about.
      There were around 220 thousand( I think) Maori when Europeans arrived here. Not a lot people.
      As for Europeans being solely responsible for the destruction of the environment Maori used fire to hunt Moa, Hone Heke was a timber merchant . He leased many ships and felled most of the large Kauri owned by his hapu.A brilliant man he took to capitalism like a duck to water.Most of the tribal aristocracy did. Tuhoe were one of the few hold outs.I could go on but I reckon you should read Tony Simpson’s Te Riri Pakeha( for starters) and park your worthless prejudice against pakeha where the sun don’t shine.

    • Stephen: “This unequal distribution benefits between Pakeha and Maori overall as a group is evident. The direction of power between Pakeha and Maori is historic, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of Aotearoa society which is reflected today.”

      There isn’t unequal distribution of either benefits or power; you’re forgetting about the Treaty settlements, which have brought wealth and power to the iwi. There certainly are Maori who are impoverished, but that’s an issue of class (ie, socioeconomic level), not of being Maori per se. Plenty of the very poor in this country are pakeha. I know: I worked with them.

      Whiteness? Either you’ve been indoctrinated in critical race theory, or you’ve got a serious case of the inferiority complex, as my late mother used to say.

      “He won’t tell you that….”

      He won’t tell you the things you assert, because they’re either untrue or a distortion of what actually happened.

      “…“Pakeha” his people have only been in these lands for under 182 years by force and assimilation.”

      The first European whalers and sealers arrived here in the far south, in the late 18th century, around 1791. They began almost immediately intermarrying with the local Maori. So there’s been a pakeha presence here for over 200 years. It’s well-known that the souther you go in NZ, the whiter the local Maori are. That’s because there’s been so much intermarriage over the past 200+ years. Settlement was largely peaceful, even though there was violence on both sides (read about the Massacre of The Boyd); assimilation in the form of intermarriage was enthusiastically practised by both settlers and indigenes.

      “….a large percentage of Native forest Fauna, the extinction of native wildlife….”

      The large scale extinction of local fauna occurred centuries before the first European settlers. This from the Royal Society:
      “At the time of initial settlement in the AD thirteenth century [1], New Zealand’s terrestrial fauna was dominated by large, flightless and naive birds, and abundant land-breeding seabirds and pinnipeds, which provided a rich source of easily hunted animal protein that helped to sustain early population growth [17]. However, in less than two centuries, intense hunting pressure [27] and forest clearance by fire [45–47] caused massive and widespread extinctions and a reduction in large easily harvested prey species. ”
      https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.160258
      To be sure, there have been extinctions since the first Europeans arrived, but the real heavy lifting in that regard was carried out by the early Polynesians. The same is true of forest clearance.

      “…..our waterways are polluted……local councils signed off on these so called progressive projects that fucked up the quality of water with disregard to Maori.”

      South Island lowland waterways are polluted courtesy of industrial-scale dairy farming, much of it Ngai Tahu owned and controlled. I watched this happen. Note that in the North Island, waterways are also polluted by farming; many of those farms are also owned and controlled by local iwi. Have a look sometime at what’s happening around the Taupo area. I believe that land was handed back as part of a Treaty settlement. Iwi have benefited as much as anyone else from consents granted by various Councils. We’re all negatively affected by waterway pollution, not just Maori, of course.

      “….he doesn’t understand the nuance’s of Maori relationship with water and land as being a member of their whanau.”

      You’re referring to the concept of animism here. But it isn’t clear what that has to do with anything related to water and water rights.

      “….a very large percentage of his people have anti-Maori sentiments”

      Got any statistics on that, which you could post? I’d certainly like to see them.

      “…Nanaia Mahuta who want’s to nationalize our waters for all NZers.”

      Hahaha! No she doesn’t. Pope Punctilious has outed her and the government’s real intention. If they really were nationalising water, they wouldn’t be going about it in this way.

      “….without having to properly consult with tangatawhenua an obligation breach under the T.O.W. no doubt.”

      Do you actually know anything about this issue? The above comment suggests that you don’t.

      There’s no going back, you know. NZ is what it is. The crimes of the past – on both sides – cannot be undone. We must all live here as best we can. Looking forward is a great deal more pointful than harking back to the past.

  14. This from Chris’s post stands out in neon:

    The te Tiriti-driven constitutional transformation proposed by the parties of the Left makes no provision for popular ratification. The radical changes proposed – like Three Waters – will either be imposed by statute, or achieved by judicial fiat. No heed will be given to the venerable notion that it is unacceptable for a government in possession of a temporary parliamentary majority to fundamentally change the rules of the political game.   The convention that significant constitutional reform – like altering the way parliamentarians are elected – must be put to a referendum, will simply be over-ridden.

    Labour’s, the Greens’ and the Māori Party’s ability to successfully counter the Right’s attack will be fatally undermined by its deafening silence on the key issue of whether or not it they are willing to obtain formal popular authorisation for their radical (some would say revolutionary) proposals.

    To date, however, the te Tiriti-driven policies and plans of all three left-wing parties offer no opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have their say on the profound constitutional changes being promoted.

    The Left’s refusal to abide by the long-established conventions for validating and effecting significant constitutional change in New Zealand will leave them wide open to the charge that they are conspiring to brush aside their country’s democratic traditions. (That we all believe in, even when we stray from them at times. This will demolish the foundation of the country which has been crumbling. The protests seen now supposedly against Covid19 requirements actually have been building for some time as the gap between government rhetoric and lack of performance and veritas and people’s expectations has grown wider and may become unbridgeable. Then what the hell does a basically goodand honest person do?)

  15. An exanple of twisted political rhetoric ithat people will scoff at is this one to the latest protesters.
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/461193/politicians-decry-protest-disruption-say-restrictions-will-end-eventually

    The protesters are addressed as if their concerns are about Covid19 only,when underlying their despair and anger is the knowledge that things were bad before. Therefore they will just ease from worse back to bad. It’s hardly going to soothe the savage breast is it and government if it was half-awake and not high on dreams of omniscence and high living would at least have some commonsense to address the problems of say housing as one. This would be done in a way that showed an interest in people’s wants and not just their needs for something better than cardboard box slums, or being in a motel room box – out of sight, out of mind. If we have a 5 million cohesion moving together for real, the protesters want to see it, empirically

  16. Agree with all this, and most comments.

    The disappointing thing is that by running roughshod over the fabric of our liberal democracy we lose sight of the intertwining and mixed ethnic fabric NZ has – and should – have.

    I quite enjoy a Maori perspective on public policy – but it should be just that – a perspective. Not an override, not a trump card, and not a destruction of political equality.

    As always, Chris (and Martyn for that matter) wish to blame Act for having to pushback. Im grateful Act are actually attempting some pushback, even if I’m not all onboard with their economic policies.

    Why doesn’t Chris take some responsibility for the state of HIS left? And yes, they are HIS Left. Ethno-nationalism in NZ, CRT in schools, and identity politics everywhere is the ideological hegemony right now are all the product of the Left in NZ. They flow the Leftist collective belief that ‘the greater good justifies anything’ – including justifying overriding democracy. We see it played out right now as NZ continues a crash-course in soft Authoritarianism under the guise of “public health” as countries across the world pull-back on control but we double-down on an unbelievably stifling group-think on Covid-19 and vaccination.

    This is why I stopped reading TDB – Martyn and Chris are a cesspool of “it’s neo-liberalism” as the one true cause of all evil. They would never admit “the Left is wrong on this and we hold part responsibility for letting this state of affairs occur as these ideologies infiltrated all Leftist institutions and there is danger when Leftist ideas run untramelled”.

    Instead, they snipped from the edges, and when the Left went crazy, tried to disassociate themselves and blame Act and other Libertarians for pushing back.

    Too little, too late. Pathetic and disingenuous.

    • bourgoise concerns around race gender etc are not inherently left, the right are fuckin totally obsessed with them too.

      One concrete actual example of CRT being taught in schools in NZ just one, not hearsay, not my mate sez at his kids school but an actual REAL example..the voodoo non-discipline that is CRT is a degree level course so is above the heads of most kids….AND NO… ‘YOU SHOULD RESPECT THOSE NOT LIKE YOU’ is not CRT.

  17. Funny you mention the supreme court, I remember the concerns at the time about abuse of govt power and how the privy council kept us honest. Then into the CCPT? thing, another horrific over reach. Is it any wonder that the chickens have come home to roost? So few people listened when these issues arose without seeing how they were building a bridge to a more authoritarian less democratic future and here we are.

    Democracy is being touted as something that doesnt work and soon we will have endoctrinated generations that believe that too. It is hugely depressing. I love this country but it is becoming unrecognisable.

    At first I thought I was just getting old but now I know it comes down to political systems that are not fit for purpose in an age typified by greed and self interest where politicians can do whatever they like and get away with it.

  18. The Privy Council?! You sound like my Rumpole-loving barrister uncle objecting to everything Margaret Wilson did. A good man for the underdog but set in the culture of British law. Couldn’t you find a more apt example?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.