The New Zealand Government’s response to Israel-US attacks on Iran has revealed a chasm. On one side are those who argue; that New Zealand must stay aligned with its 20th century allies right or wrong.

On the other side are those who insist; that the long fought for reputation, of a nation that stood for an international order based on law, justice and multilateralism, should be the guiding principles in good times and bad.

New Zealand has inched toward such societal rifts before; the Springbok Rugby tour of New Zealand in 1981; shortly followed by a generational shift and geo-political quake that came in the form of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear movement and subsequent enduring legislation. The United Nations security council endorsed response in Afghanistan to attacks on the United States shook the foundations of the Labour-Alliance coalition Government in 2001-02. And the fraudulently justified US-led invasion of Iraq triggered hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to protest in the streets. (The Helen Clark Labour-led Government of the time refused to officially be included among the US-led coalition forces that invaded Iraq.)

In recent times, old loyalties and biases have been challenged with the genocidal disproportional response by Israel against Hamas and generally Palestinian woman, children, and the elderly whose only offence was to exist in the path of the military machine.

And now, the US Donald Trump Administration’s alliance with Israel has unilaterally justified its attacks on Iran – the murder of its supreme leader and the assassination of over 40 individuals in its operational chain of command – as a legal pre-emptive response to a perceived first-strike-plan by Iran. This, while negotiations were underway to address regional security concerns.

This is the backdrop to New Zealand Government’s response where Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters wrote on Sunday March 1:

“In this context, we acknowledge that the actions taken overnight by the US and Israel were designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.

“We condemn in the strongest terms Iran’s indiscriminate retaliatory attacks on Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan. We cannot risk further regional escalation, and civilian life must be protected.” (Ref. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-government-statement-iran )

*******

LISTEN: To Radio New Zealand’s The Panel, where host Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Sue Bradford and Phil O’Reilly. First up, is an extended conversation on the US and Israel attack on Iran. Columnist and Iranian New Zealander, Donna Miles-Mojab, delivers her take on the conflict and what it means for the regime. Then, I (Selwyn Manning) give an analysis on New Zealand’s stance and the legality of the attack.

It’s well worth a listen, as the fault line of New Zealand debate is clear.

*******

For those who are prepared to abandon the process of law and justice on international affairs, the New Zealand Government’s statement offered clarity; that their government would stand at the side of traditional security ‘friends’ as they commit to fight against another ‘evil’ empire.

For others, the statement was another example of mediocrity from a coalition that lacks a morality within its own argument – an apparent abandonment of principles such as international law and multilateralism – frameworks that have served small significant nations like New Zealand well.

The argument follows; that New Zealand’s coalition government has jeopardised the national interest, the hard won identity respected by those nations that still hold true to multilateralism and principle.

Here’s a please explain moment:

New Zealand is a small nation, but it is a significant actor in international affairs. Once, it could be relied upon – especially on matters of principle – to articulate a strong position on breaches of international law and justice. We have held positions at the United Nations security council, have been a driven advocate among general assembly nations and a persuasive arbiter among multilateral groups such as CANZ (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) that tag-team diplomacy at the United Nations and elsewhere.

New Zealand was once a staunch advocate (and remains a member state) of the International Criminal Court. And, in matters of trade, New Zealand sought to develop common ground rather than difference – tools that have been beneficial to others in times past when conflict has raged and red-mist would otherwise have dominated attempts at a diplomatic solution.

Today’s New Zealand is a myriad of conflicting arguments; its current coalition government argues that Iran’s regime is evil so therefore the powerful must bomb it to peace.

But the fact that the Iran regime is not a paragon of virtue – either domestically or regionally – does not diminish the fact that the United States’ and Israel’s governments decided to attack – decisions that allegedly and arguably breach international law.

International law: In a rudimentary sense; it comes down to whether Israel in the first instance was legally obliged to commit a preemptive strike on Iran, murdering its supreme leader and taking out over 40 of those who were in its chain of command.

Was there an imminent threat to Israel? At this juncture, it appears not.

Were diplomatic efforts underway to address regional security concerns, through US diplomatic efforts? Yes… up until Thursday February 26.

When Opposition Is Beyond Political

Back to New Zealand: New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, on matters of geopolitics and global security, often appears to operate more like a CEO rather than the chair of a nation’s cabinet.

Widespread reports of the Prime Minister’s lack of coherency on this matter is reasonably consistent with a manager waiting to be guided by a governor, or board chair by way of policy, on the required pathway ahead.

The problem for Christopher Luxon is; he has no such external nor internal guidance. In geopolitics and matters of global security, policy alone does not help. Natural leadership qualities do.

Throughout his prime ministership, Luxon has displayed a tendency to outsource foreign affairs leadership responsibilities to his junior coalition partner, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. Or, when that doesn’t work, he leans toward Australia and/or the United States to provide direction on big picture issues.

But for many New Zealanders, New Zealand can’t have it both ways; either it (the coalition government) sides with the ‘might-is-right’ Trump-led approach to chaotic global affairs, or it sides with the multitude of countries that still hold on to principles of justice and international law.

Where will New Zealand as a society tilt? It will likely be up to New Zealand voters, later in 2026, to finally decide which way this country tracks over the next few years.

US President Trump’s vanity and sense of global imperialism has become more expansive and performative this year.

These are times when countries like New Zealand, lacking persuasive moral leadership, can easily lose their souls, and, in the process of being risk averse, risk abandoning their own sovereignty, national interest, and identity.

*******

New Zealand’s foreign minister Winston Peters announced at the United Nations General Assembly that this New Zealand coalition Government will not recognise Palestine as a state – at this time.

Here, it is important to cite New Zealand’s foreign minister in relevant detail.

Winston Peters said at the United Nations General Assembly:

“We think a future generation when Israeli and Palestinian political leadership is an asset, not a liability, and where other situational variables have shifted the current calculus away from conflict and towards peace would be more conducive for recognising Palestinian statehood.

“There in lies our dilemma over any decision to recognise Palestinian Palestinian statehood now because statehood recognition is an instrument for peace as an instrument for peace also does not play because there are no fully legitimate and viable state of Palestine to recognise.

“Palestine does not fully meet the accepted criteria for a state as it does not fully control its own territory or population.

“There is also no obvious link between more of the international community recognised in the state of Palestine and the aimed objective of protecting the two-state solution.

“Indeed, what we have observed since partners pronouncements reveals that recognising Palestine now will likely prove counterproductive.

“That is, Hamas resisting negotiation in the belief that it is winning the global propaganda war while pushing Israel towards even more entrench military positions.

“Recognition at this time we also think is open to political manipulation by both Hamas and Israel. Hamas will seek to portray our recognition of Palestine as a victory as they have already done in response to partner announcements.

“Israel will claim the recognition toward rewards Hamas and that it removes pressure on them to release hostages and agree to a ceasefire,” Winston Peters said. (Ref. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/new-zealand-national-statement-un-general-assembly-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%98leadership-global-affairs-united )

In essence, I argue, that Peters’ speech kicks the problem down the road. He shifts the responsibility for developing a solution to the Gaza atrocities conditionally on to a future generation of leaders. And it fails to acknowledge that at the current rate of mass killings of Palestinian people, there will be no one left to create nor nurture a future generation of Palestinian leadership.

But the statement nuances a shift in New Zealand’s position geopolitically and within the rules-based-order community of nations. The statement will confuse many observers of global politics, not the least among New Zealanders and peoples who sought asylum in New Zealand far from the paces of their birth.

Let’s consider why.

International Law.

The speech will trigger a cringe for millions of New Zealand citizens and permanent residents at realising how this right-leaning nationalistic three-party coalition government has abandoned and failed to reflect their strongly held positions for human rights principles.

It is human rights principles that have long anchored New Zealand as a strong and unshakable advocate for an international rules based order, for international humanitarian rights, for recourse to international law and justice, and signatories to the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice.

It was this cumulative support for human rights and justice that compelled New Zealanders to reject the militant wing of Hamas for its atrocities against civilians in Israel on October 7, 2023.

But advocacy for human rights and justice is not a political expression. It isn’t tribal. It isn’t biased in favour of one peoples and not another. Advocacy for human rights and justice is universal and in this sense it is blind to the class or statehood where hate and atrocity originates from.

This is the same universal principle that the International Court of Justice applied when it found there was a prima facie case of genocide being committed by the state of Israel.

It is this same universal principle that the International Criminal Court applied when calling for the arrest of the state of Israel’s prime minister Netanyahu to be tried for crimes.

Peters’ speech to the United Nations General Assembly ignored these bodies and only waved a cursory glance at the ongoing murder of innocent children and peoples in Gaza, an apparent systematic act of mass murder, committed against people simply because they are of Palestinian birth. Peters’ speech failed these victims and rejected, by way of omission, their right to justice.

In a sense, this New Zealand coalition government has reflexively returned New Zealand back to that glitch-period where this nation fell estranged from the international common-good, in breach of the Gleneagles Agreement, and refused to cease engagement with Apartheid South Africa by allowing sporting contact with that murderous regime in 1981.

New Zealanders rejected that government in 1984, and today’s abandonment of New Zealand’s long held positions for rights and justice will certainly be a factor in the 2026 general elections.

Multilateralism is founded on rules and laws. Where rogue states abandon the principles that are universally agreed to by the majority, those nation states fail to advocate for the multilateral institutions that they rely on for social, judicial, and economic progress.

Peters, as the envoy for this current New Zealand coalition government cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim to be a voice for multilateralism and justice when he has delivered a decision that stands as contrary to the 81 percent of the United Nations general assembly nations who have announced and demand recognition for the State of Palestine.

Gaza and the occupied territories of the West Bank have recognised borders. Within those borders reside a peoples that reflect a common culture and a right to self-determination. They have a representative political structure that can engage itself in bilateral and multilateral forum and bodies. It cannot be ignored that it is being prevented from functioning as a state due to the atrocities that have been inflicted upon it by its occupiers.

It is the occupation that must be addressed, and the United Nations General Assembly, by way of a large majority, recognises this fact – ashamedly the New Zealand coalition government and Peters do not.

CANZ bloc and Like Minded Countries

In addition to New Zealand has long contributed to what is called the CANZ bloc at the United Nations.

The CANZ bloc is a group of nations consisting of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It has held together due to these nations sharing common values as ‘like minded countries’.

New Zealanders have long heard their representatives citing allegiance with ‘like minded countries’.

This too has been abandoned by New Zealand at a most important time for multilateralism, a time when supposed ‘like minded countries’ need to band together and present a solid powerful bloc on issues such as Palestine.

This is why Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited New Zealand on the weekend of August 9-10, 2025. Albanese sought the position of New Zealand’s current Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on whether New Zealand would recognise Palestine as a state in keeping with ‘like minded countries’ Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and France. Luxon couldn’t give him an answer. And New Zealanders were left wondering why.

On this issue, New Zealand will have sent a signal to other nations that it cannot be relied on anymore as a true advocate of peace and justice while it fails to life up to its long-held reputation as an honest broker on the world stage standing up for peace, justice and multilateral progress.

This is a day of shame that has dawned in New Zealand. And millions in this multicultural Pacific nation will feel ashamed that their political representatives have failed not only them, but victims of atrocities all over the world.

Failed Opportunity to Advocate for UN Reform

Peters’ speech before the United Nations General Assembly, while acknowledging the UN needed reform, failed dismally to present a reformist plan that New Zealand would advocate for. It was a glaring omission from a once seasoned politician that made his bones on matters of principle and law.

Peters speech also failed to identify the mechanisms and protocols that exist within the United Nations at this current time; principles like the R2P or responsibility to protect protocols that were advanced after UN observers were prevented from protecting victims of Rwanda genocide decades ago.

The United Nations (UN) Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a global political commitment adopted in 2005 by world leaders to prevent and respond to mass atrocity crimes – namely genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. It holds that state sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect populations within their borders; when a state manifestly fails to do so, the international community has a responsibility to act collectively and decisively, in accordance with the UN Charter. 

All Peters and New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials needed to do is indulge themselves for a moment to reflect on this R2P protocol as published by the United Nations office on genocide prevention and the responsibility to protect. (Ref. https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/responsibility-protect/about )

Put simply, within the UN charter there is the framework and mechanism for Peters, as a representative or a once principled nation, to cite and demand be applied to resolving the humanitarian crisis and murder taking place today in Gaza, and indeed in other parts of the world.

And it is this, that illustrates greatest the areas where reform of the United Nations is required and is at a critical juncture.

The United Nations was formed as a body to advocate and restore peace. For decades now, it has shifted its emphasis onto becoming a distributor of assistance and development. This is noble and it is vital in a complex world such as we live in. But it has become moribund where it comes to ensuring a mechanism or framework structured body where nations can cumulatively restore peace and prosperity to nations, peoples, and states that are victims of tyranny.

This is the kernel of need where reformist ideals are developed and implemented. And this was largely ignored by Peters and his coalition government colleagues.

As such, New Zealand faces headwinds. It may now be regarded by our once closest multilateral partners as an unreliable and immoral unjust state that waxes and wanes, dancing on the head of a pin on distorted legalese that offers more smoke and mirrors than principled solutions.

New Zealanders and Palestinian victims deserved to witness the very opposite of what was served up to them today. They deserved to witness a representative and true advocate for – particularly in the case of the Palestinian diaspora here in New Zealand and their dead and dying relatives back in the occupied territories and Gaza – rights to recourse as individuals and as survivors to universally applied justice.

But this current New Zealand government refused them. And as such it has sided with those nations that are a part of the problem manifest in Gaza, rather than being part of the solution.

Doing nothing is complicit.

And at a macro level, Paul and Selwyn assess how ‘Post-Colonial Blowback’ is a power giving rise to the Global South and its worldwide influence in global geopolitics.

INTERACTION:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)

The number of voices raising concerns about the Government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill is rapidly growing. This is especially apparent now that Parliament’s select committee is listening to submissions from the public to evaluate the proposed legislation.

Twenty-seven thousand submissions have been made to Parliament about the bill. This is one of the highest numbers ever submitted about legislation, which reflects how community anger is growing against the controversial bill.

Background to the bill

The Government’s Fast-Track Bill has been created to help speed up and streamline the ability to build things in New Zealand. Everything from dams to roads to housing developments are expected to be put through this new mechanism which essentially bypasses New Zealand’s relatively slow and challenging resource consenting processes.

Most controversially, the new mechanism empowers three ministers to make the final decisions on infrastructure proposals. Those ministers merely have to be convinced that an application contains “significant regional or national benefits”. In agreeing to a project, the ministers can override the expert panel assisting them as well as existing environmental laws.

I’ve already written about the processes in these three columns:

1. The Government’s new fast-track invitation to corruption
2. Time for “Fast-Track Watch”
3. The Case for the Government’s Fast Track Bill

The Select Committee process

The Government introduced the Fast Track Approvals Bill into Parliament for its first reading in March. It now has to be examined by a select committee, which will report back on its recommendations on September 7.

The bill is currently being considered by the Environmental Select Committee, which has allocated six weeks to consider public submissions and presentations. However, due to the extremely large number of submissions, the select committee has had to cut back on hearing from everyone.

Of the 27,000 submitters, about 2900 have requested to appear before the select committee to discuss their feedback on the bill. Given these vast numbers, a decision has been made to restrict oral submissions to just 1100. The Committee has decided to allow appearances from 550 organisations who want to speak to the committee. They will get ten minutes each.

Regarding the individuals, 2,350 submitters have requested to be heard at the hearings, but only 550 appointments will be made. To decide who gets these, the committee has opted for a ballot to be used as a mechanism for random selection. Some higher-profile individuals, such as former MPs, will be automatically selected. All individuals are being allocated five minutes each.

The opposition parties have opposed curtailing the process, saying that the hearing schedule should be extended to accommodate all the requests.

Green MP Lan Pham says: “I think the fact that this bill runs across so much other legislation, and impacts so much of what we understand, and sort of like, the legislative baseline of how Aotearoa works, we thought that it was really important that everyone got to have their say” – see Giles Dexter’s RNZ report today, Fast-track submissions: Hundreds will miss out on speaking at committee

Similarly, Labour’s Rachel Brooking says that it’s even more vital to hear the submissions than usual: “one of the things that the bill does is stops public participation and processes where there normally would be public participation. So it’s even more important that those people are heard”.

As the RNZ report explains, the chair of the committee – National’s David MacLeod – points out the Fast Track Bill has attracted an exceptionally high level of individual submissions that are essentially just duplicates of the templates that organisations like Forest & Bird and the Environmental Defence Society encouraged their supporters to send in. MacLeod says: “clearly, a form submission, once you’ve read one, you’ve read the whole lot. It doesn’t particularly add more value to that process.”

The situation has been labelled “absurd” by veteran political journalist Richard Harman. In his daily email newsletter yesterday, Harman criticised “pressure groups” trying to “flood” the parliamentary process with low-quality submissions. Although the process should involve “depth and time spent questioning submitters”, according to Harman, this won’t occur.

Submissions mostly oppose the Fast Track Bill

It is clear that the vast majority of submissions oppose the Fast Track Bill—mostly because thousands of individuals have submitted them at the urging of various environmental groups. Of course, there is something of a dichotomy in which environmental groups oppose the bill and business groups support it.

Yet this dichotomy has been less apparent than might be expected. So far, several business and farmer groups have provided some critique and recommended significant changes to the bill.

The Employers and Manufacturers Association presented to the committee yesterday. Although they support the bill in general, they criticise it and say it is vital that the new processes are only temporary. This is best covered by Richard Harman’s article today, Our slow regional councils (paywalled)

Harman reports that Alan MacDonald representing the Employers Association at the select committee hearings, and said the real answer to the problem with consenting processes was to replace the existing Resource Management Act with a new environmental consenting process that had buy-in from all: “that’s something that we need to agree on cross-party and very quickly.”

MacDonald explained that his lobby group had been working with environmentalists such as the Environmental Defence Society to progress this, and he didn’t want to see the Fast Track Act deflect from this urgency. Therefore, he suggested that the legislation should contain a subset clause to ensure the Fast Track doesn’t become permanent or stick around too long.

The Association also expressed discomfort with ministers making final decisions on resource consents, saying that “We’ve had them in the past, and they’ve been challenged all the way to the High Court and beyond, where they have been gotten wrong on both sides of the House.”

According to Harman, MacDonald also criticised the bill in what it proposed for the makeup of the various authorities involved in the new consents process: “We do think that the panel and both the ministerial side and the advisory panel could do with a bit more balance, perhaps including the Minister of Environmental Conservation and also in the advisory panels.”

The presentation yesterday from Federated Farmers was also surprising. Although they support the Bill’s objectives, they have serious concerns, especially around excluding the public from the Fast-Track decision-making process. The farmers’ group emphasised the importance of “fair process” and the community’s ability to feed into decisions, especially if infrastructure projects involve private land use.

Harman reported that the Federation’s principal policy advisor, Natasha Berkett, said broader community consultation and debate were needed: “These types of projects don’t occur in isolation; they occur in communities… And, if people feel that land has been taken in an inappropriate way or a process has not occurred in an appropriate way, then there can be a lot of discord around that project. And that leads to this loss of social license and lack of support for the project as well.”

For more on business critiques of the Fast-Track, see Fox Meyer’s Newsroom article, Mining lobby: Fast-track bill’s ministerial powers ‘not unusual’ 

This reports that Meridan Energy, as with Federated Farmers, opposes the concentration of decision-making powers in Cabinet, “suggesting that the final say ought to rest with the expert panel.”

Likewise, for more on Federated Farmers’ submission and why they are reluctant to support it, see Fox Meyer’s Federated Farmers’ support for fast-track bill ‘ambiguous’

Environmentalists passionate opposed

Unsurprisingly, environmental organisations have been presenting the most passionate submissions against the Fast-Track. One group that stood out in their presentation yesterday was the Friends of Pākiri Beach, who have spent years trying to stop sand mining in the waters off their beach. They have had successes in the Environment Court but are concerned that companies such as McCallum Bros, who have also submitted in favour of the bill, will get the green light despite their previous failures to obtain consent.

The submission of the Friends of Pākiri Beach, amongst others, was covered yesterday in RNZ’s Pākiri residents would be ‘crushed’ if sand mining fast-tracked, committee told

For a more in-depth look at the campaign of these environmentalists and why they’re worried about the new bill, see Farah Hancock’s RNZ report, Why Pākiri locals fear the Government’s Fast Track Bill could steal away protection of their pristine coastline

But for the most passionate and articulate environmental submission on the bill, it’s worth reading Anne Salmond’s: My open submission on this radical, flawed fast-track bill

She concludes that New Zealanders, once they realise how the legislation favours companies over communities, will realise “that like the economy, Parliament is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful, and our democracy is broken. Around the world, we can see what happens when this kind of cynicism and anger is ignited. It’s a frightening prospect.”

Finally, one of the main objections to the Fast-Track is about the influence of vested interests and the need for more transparency in businesses lobbying ministers to get their projects pushed through. And today, Newsroom’s David Williams reports that there are good reasons to doubt that the processes will be transparent and above board – pointing to the interactions between one potential Fast-Track applicant and one of the ministers who will have the power to grant consents – see: Jones suggested fast-track bid at undeclared dinner (paywalled)

According to this report, the Minister for Resources, Shane Jones, had dinner with a coal mining company boss, Barry Bragg, on the West Coast in February. Jones didn’t record the meeting in his officially released ministerial diaries because he says it was an unscheduled “last-minute” event. Three days later, Bragg wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure Christopher Bishop and said: I had dinner with Resources and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones last Friday and he suggested I write to you to ask that the Te Kuha coal project be considered for listing in the fast-track and one-stop shop bill.”

The article also reports the response of Forest & Bird’s advocacy group manager, Richard Capie, who says the fast-track legislation “opens the gateway to unbridled lobbying” and “This letter represents the tip of the iceberg.”

Dr Bryce Edwards

Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington

Many criticisms are being made of the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill, including by this writer. But as with everything in politics, every story has two sides, and both deserve attention. It’s important to understand what the Government is trying to achieve and its arguments for such a bold reform. As part of a new series providing scrutiny of the fast-track legislation (#FastTrackWatch), this first column rounds up the commentary and arguments in favour of what the Government is proposing.

Chris Bishop puts the case for getting things done

The architect of the overturn of RMA is Infrastructure and Housing Minister Chris Bishop. He has developed the new regime, with the central purpose of enabling the country to “get things done” – i.e. for development to occur. This goal comes in the context of widespread awareness and consensus that things have been moving too slowly in New Zealand, and major and important infrastructure and housing have been held back by structural and governmental regulation.

Much of this relates to the Resource Management Act 1991, which most politicians want replaced. Bishop’s answer is to essentially deregulate the sector and turbo-charge the ability of developers to get their projects off the ground. And in finding a way to do this, he’s picked up what the last Labour Government had already done with their own Covid-era fast-track processes and expanded that into a more permanent and extensive escalated process.

The new processes mean that three cabinet ministers (those responsible for transport, regional development, and infrastructure) can select a select number of development proposals to essentially get exemptions from normal resource consenting processes. An expert panel is also involved in advising the ministers and suggesting conditions to be placed on developers, but the three ministers have the ultimate say.

Bishop explained all of this in his column in the Herald yesterday, in which he paints a dark picture of the status quo, which justifies a new approach: “It’s too hard to get things done in New Zealand. Too hard to build new renewable energy, too hard to build roads and public transport, too hard to build houses and too hard to develop the sort of sensible economic development projects that provide jobs and growth” – see: Fast Track Approvals Bill – New Zealand has become an obstruction economy (paywalled)

To illustrate how the status quo needs radical change, Bishop is good at using anecdotes about the frustrations of a dysfunctional and bureaupathetic consents system: “I recently met a housing developer who had finally received consent after a three-year process only to have an official turn up on the very day earthworks were to begin and demand a Wildlife Act permit. That process took more than a year to complete. Such ineptitude would be funny if kids weren’t living in cars and a generation were not locked out of home ownership.”

Bishop has cleverly turned the tables on critics who has sought to tar the fast-track process as being about helping construction and mining companies to get their way. Instead, he sells his solution as being about improving housing availability, making roads safer, and decarbonising the economy to fight climate change.

He also puts forward a very clear explanation of how the new fast-track process will work as a streamlined “one-stop-shop” process for developers: “it doesn’t just deal with resource consents, it also deals with all the other things often needed for development, like conservation permits, heritage and so on. It makes sense to do all of that at the same time, rather than strung out over many years and with multiple different government agencies.”

Shane Jones’ populist approach

New Zealand First’s Shane Jones is the second biggest voice selling the fast-track proposal to the public. And although Bishop is the main architect of it, it’s been said that Jones, as Resources Minister, is the schemes’ “godfather”. Crucially, he was responsible for getting the scheme included in the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First.

Jones’ sales pitch for the fast-track is less subtle than that of Bishop, and more populist, saying it’s about driving a metaphorical bulldozer through all the red- and green-tape to get things done for “the people”, especially in the neglected regions. He promises more jobs and economic growth as a result. It’s all very much in line with his “Make New Zealand Great Again” mode in which leaders need to break rules to get things done.

Jones takes delight in promising more consents for the extractive sector, including mining on conservation land, and appeals to New Zealanders, who he says are sick of environmental protections slowing down progress too much. In debating the new legislation in Parliament, Jones explained the new approach: “Gone are the days of the multicoloured skink, the kiwi, many other species that have been weaponised to deny regional New Zealand communities their right to a livelihood, their entitlement to live peacefully with their environment but derive an income to meet the costs of raising families in regional New Zealand.”

More famously, Jones has also referred to allowing land that is currently protected against mining to protect the Archey’s frog: “In those areas called the Department of Conservation estate, where it’s stewardship land, stewardship land is not DOC land, and if there is a mineral, if there is a mining opportunity and it’s impeded by a blind frog, goodbye, Freddy.”

Mike Hosking: The Most important thing the Govt is doing

The one person outside of government and industry circles who is almost a lone voice in championing the fast-track regime is Newstalk broadcaster Mike Hosking. He put forward his best defence of it this week, saying the proposal “might well be the most important thing this Government does” given that New Zealand’s has an infrastructure crisis and needs to get on with building and fixing things, which is what this bill is about – see: This Government was elected on change — embrace it

Hosking reminds us that the current Resource Management Act isn’t working, and so it’s important that we innovate to try new ways of getting on with creating economic growth and rebuilding the country. It’s a message that will resonate with a public that is impatient for change and transformation, especially given that this is a widespread feeling that “the country is broken” or in decline.

Hosking’s other key argument is to attack those that are questioning the fast-track proposal – he describes them as “incessant moaners” and “handwringers” who are holding back progress. Here’s his key point: “Submissions on the legislation closed last week and you can imagine who turned up. It’s the same people who believe not doing things is the preferred option. The same people who have held this country to ransom over their individual myopic view of what’s important to save, or treasure, or talk more about.”

The New Zealand Initiative: In favour of centralising power in Wellington

The pro-business lobby group and think tank the New Zealand Initiative has come out firmly in favour of the Fast Track Approvals Bill, saying that it’s “a necessary step to streamline decision-making for projects with significant economic benefits, and it should proceed.”

This group is normally an advocate for “localism”, devolution, and against the ethos of “Wellington knows best” – which means they might have been expected to rail against this concentration of power in the Beehive. But in this case, they support the Government taking back control so that they can push through development without cause for local participation and impediments in the decisions.

The Initiative’s main spokesperson on the issue, Nick Clark, has written a column for the Herald this month about how the bill might not be perfect, but it should be supported because it “represents an improvement on the status quo” – see: Fast-tracking for infrastructure fix is needed now (paywalled)

In talking about the concerning imperfections in the fast-tracking proposal, such as the increased likelihood of corruption, the Initiative concludes that these aren’t important enough to prevent the Bill from being implemented in its current form, especially given the urgency of New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit.

The Initiative therefore takes a highly pragmatic argument in favour of fast-tracking, pointing to, like Bishop, the many economic problems facing the country, which now means that a centralisation of powers is desirable in order to push through developments, even if they are opposed by locals.

Infrastructure Commission

Some fast-track supporters have used material produced by the Government’s Infrastructure Commission to show the need for the new reforms. Although the Commission doesn’t appear to have taken a stance on this major infrastructure issue, it has published a report on the problems with the existing resource management rules.

The report was prepared for the Commission by the Sapere consultancy company, and it shows that the current consenting process costs the economy about $1.3 billion per year. It also pointed out that over the last five years, the average time taken to get consent has doubled.

The Commission is also under pressure to come up with ways to speed up developments. A poll last year showed that 61 per cent of New Zealanders believe that not enough is being done to meet the country’s infrastructure needs. Priorities, according to survey respondents, were flood defences and new housing supply. For more on this, see Andrea Vance’s recent column, Why Nimbyism is the biggest risk to the Government’s fast-track regime (paywalled)

Business interests welcome fast-tracking

“Manna from heaven” is how the fast-track bill is being described by the chief executive of the mining lobby group Straterra, Josie Vidal. She says that “the country is in trouble. We need to get on and do some things”, and suggests that politicians have become too ponderous in their decision-making – see Brent Edwards’ NBR article, Opponents and supporters of fast-track bill want changes (paywalled)

As to the criticisms of the bill, Vidal writes this off: “There is a lot of fearmongering from environmental groups.”

Similarly, Newsroom’s editor Tim Murphy has said: “This Govt is certainly making some people happy. The mining, marine aquaculture, roading, energy and land developer industries must be wondering whether they’ve died and gone to heaven with the new fast-tracking law.”

Certainly, businesses and other lobby groups have reacted very positively to the fast-track bill. Press statements have been put out in its support by Infrastructure New Zealand, Transporting New Zealand, Energy Resources Aotearoa, and Civil Contractors NZ.

Some iwi are also supportive of the fast-track, as many have economic interests in aquaculture and energy industry. For example, Ngāi Tahu has been reported as hoping to use the new fast-track to finally get the greenlight for its previously-blocked proposal for a massive salmon farm off Stewart Island.

The public’s appeal for “getting things done”

The fast-track regime is likely to be very popular with the public. There’s a widespread frustration with how little government gets achieved, and how society is held back by regulations. This is especially the case in terms of building and resource management consents.

….This column continues. To access this, please follow this link to the  Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz) and subscribe: Upgrade to paid.

Collectiveness at it most potent has been called asabiyya by macrohistorian and cliodynamicist Peter Turchin. At its least potent, collectiveness is a recipe for social division, top-heaviness, escalating inequality, and societal breakdown.

The present ‘debates’ in Aotearoa New Zealand – ostensibly about Te Tiriti, the Treaty of Waitangi – represent a case in point. Increased bipartisanship festers, with the two sides largely talking past each other.

Pre-contact indigenous culture in Aotearoa New Zealand can be characterised as on the collectivist side of the collective-individual spectrum, at least with respect to tribal Iwi; whereas anglo-celtic culture was and is much more individualist. The protagonists on the Māori side of our present governance-wars are rhetorically harking back to the more collectivist worldview of their ancestral predecessors. And they are indulging in forms of co-sovereignty rhetoric that border on separate governance, without much explanation of what that means for individual Aotearoans.

One aspect of the more collectivist conceptual apparatus is the language, Te Reo. There is no explicit plural form. The word Māori covers Māori as a collective (or as a set of tribal collectives) and Māori as a set of individuals. While non-Māori used to refer to Māori as ‘Maoris’, this is simply not done in polite circles anymore. (I remember in 1984, how the leader of the “New Zelland Party” used to refer to “the Marries”.) Yet I do it here, as a way to emphasise my differentiation of collective Māori from individual ‘Maoris’.

In addition to pre-contact cultural differences in relation to the collective-individual spectrum, the established political Left and the established political Right (at least as we understand those terms in Aotearoa New Zealand; the United States has muddied those waters) define themselves through that spectrum. So Māori on the Left of politics have two predispositions towards collectivism. (Here we must note that the present ‘sovereignty debate’ is at least as much a debate within Māori as between Māori and non-Māori; the principal antagonists as well as the principal protagonists are conspicuously Māori. Twenty-first century Māori culture is by no means as collectivist as the rhetoric of the protagonists conveys; the divisions are Left versus Right, with a cultural overlay.)

Vertical Equity and ‘Targeting’; trickle-down or micro-management

Vertical equity is not a liberal concept (refer to my To be (a) liberal). Whereas horizontal equity means ‘treating equals equally’ – a concept central to (individualist) liberalism – vertical equity means ‘treating unequals unequally’. Discrimination. The liberals of the political Right, who emphasise the targeting of social services and public income distribution, square this illiberal circle by emphasising policies which solely target ‘need’; not race nor religion, not sex nor gender.

The political ‘progressives’ of the Left emphasise a collective form of targeting, but cannot (or refuse to) individualise this. Thus they may advocate more resources for Māori (and often tag-on Pasifika) and more resources for women; but they avoid any korero about individual discrimination.

At Budget-time, we have routinely heard the claim that there is not enough provision in the Budget – the government’s annual fiscal statement – for Māori. Perhaps less so from 2018 to 2022. But what does that mean? Resources for Māori? Or for ‘Maoris’?

The collectivist approach mandates that discrimination happens at the top-level of political society; at the governance level. Thus bureaucracies are created or extended – including governmental ‘entities’, and indeed ‘non-governmental’ entities (which nevertheless depend on government mandates) – which are openly discriminatory in their intent.

Discrimination in favour of an allegedly disadvantaged identity is justified through a process of leverage. Statistics are gathered from individuals and coded according to attributes – especially ethnicity, sex or gender, and health status; age and religion are less fashionable at present. The never unexpected results are then presented to justify forms of collective discrimination in the political process. Predictably, the incomes of ‘Maoris’ are lower on average than the incomes of ‘non-Maoris’, and female incomes are lower on average than male incomes.

The aim of this political process is not to remove these statistical differences. Rather it is to justify and extend identity bureaucracies – indeed to create advocacy ‘industries’ around such statistical differences – in such a way that there is a large suite of highly-paid jobs available to highlight these inequalities of averages. Such political theatre typically generates much heat and very little actionable ‘light’.

Essentially, what is supposed to happen is that much resource goes into these funded governance structures, and it is meant to trickle-down to the leverage group of disadvantaged people. The result in practice is that Left governments consume large slices of the national income, while achieving very little for the disadvantaged groups ostensibly being served. Trickle-down never worked. Instead the result is too much political superstructure and too little ballast. Government becomes top-heavy.

(These same principles apply to the under-provision – and particularly the lack of maintenance – of physical infrastructure as well. Hence all the water leaks from neglected pipes, and potholes across the roading network; pipes are ballast, and potholes are examples of missing ballast. Gold-plated schemes are created and discarded.)

Policies which benefit ‘Maoris’

The disconnect between the Treaty Māori and the leaders of the present government, is that the present leaders have an individualist mindset which means the parties talk past each other. Chrisopher Luxon genuinely wants to improve life for ‘Maoris’. Problems arise because his philosophical approach of targeting the needy – disproportionately ‘Maoris’ – has its own bureaucratic short-comings; and because his understandings of public finance are medieval (in the better sense of that word), and because he is a mercantilist at heart. Mr Luxon equates national progress with ‘making money’, with the accrual of financial wealth.

Nevertheless, and despite his philosophical blindspots, Luxon is correct to emphasise that expanding discriminatory superstructure is part of the problem, rather than a solution, to the statistical disadvantages used to justify that superstructure. Christoper Luxon and David Seymour clearly understand that effective direct support for the disadvantaged will disproportionately assist ‘Maoris’, because Maoris are disproportionately disadvantaged. Further, direct assistance also provides support for disadvantaged ‘non-Maoris’, who are no more nor less deserving. Indeed – and given the practical Ministry of Health definition of who is a ‘Maori’ – there are more disadvantaged ‘non-Maoris’ in Aotearoa New Zealand than disadvantaged ‘Maoris’ (because ‘Maoris’ represent perhaps twenty percent of that database of individual Aoteroans).

Collectivism and Individualism

As Stephen Joyce noted in his recent book, collectivism has an individual dimension and individualism necessarily has a collectivist dimension. Both sides of the present ‘debate’ need to expand their fields of vision, and address these blindspots.

‘Trickle-down’ policies have wasted much of this nation’s income. The Left version of trickle-down is no better than the Right version (which includes ‘tax-cuts for the rich’) which the Left like to lampoon. And the Right indulge in much more collectivism – albeit private sector collectivism – than they would ever want to admit. (Proper macro-accounting, incorporating public equity, helps to reveal the over-distribution of resources to elite private interests.)

It is clear that Christopher Luxon and David Seymour would have preferred not to have Winston Peters and Shane Jones as lead rhetoricians for their government. The irony is that, with one small adjustment to National’s tax policies, National would probably have got at least five percent more votes, and we would have a two-party rather than a three party coalition today. The adjustment was to have an income tax policy which only gave tax cuts to people earning less than $180,000 a year. National’s rhetoric of tax cuts to “low and middle income earners” was hollow, because everyone knew that high income earners were also getting the maximum tax cut (not counting a contrived higher amount only envisaged for a few thousand families). All National had to do was to bring the top tax threshold down to about $160,000 (refer my Christopher Luxon is tone deaf, 14 Nov 2023); but it did not do this, on account of its own lack of imagination and unwillingness to seek or take advice from outsiders.

Māori are important to Aotearoa New Zealand, not because of their ‘race’ but because they were Aotearoa’s first boat people. The Tiriti is not about ethnicity – though it is about indigeneity – and people who want to continue discussing its principles are not racist. Separatist agendas based on distinguishing individual Aotearoans on the basis of their race – their ethnicity, their ancestry – are racist. Collectivism averts the racist problem of individual discrimination, but creates another problem; the growth of an expanded high-earning elite class which leverages off rather than practically addresses socio-economic problems which are there for all to see.

Christopher Luxon operates by a mercantilist metaphor that sees Aotearoa New Zealand as a ship that must “go forward”. While that metaphor represents both shallow politics and shallow economics, the prime minister does at least understand that superstructure sinks ships.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Today, In this the eleventh episode of A View from Afar for 2023, political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning will examine how the post-World War II liberal internationalist system is being challenged by a fluid constellation of global and regional powers to influence the shape of an emerging new world order.

And Paul and Selwyn will also assess how this massive shift in geopolitic demarcations is forming, relatively quickly, into a world of bipolarity where on one side we have a multipolar constellation of states, and on the other the traditional western liberal democracies.

The catalyst behind this rapidly forming bipolarity is conflict.

And, most recently, it is clear, that the Israel-Hamas war – and the atrocities committed initially by Hamas and more lately by Israel forces – is driving the world toward a transitional moment.

It appears, that what is emerging from the current multipolar system –  and think here the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court among many other global bodies – is a situation that is not merely new-and-old Great Powers competing as nation-states.

But rather, what we see are groupings of fluid constellations of powers competing as blocs to influence the shape of what is to come.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn will discuss and describe what is now evident, and sketch out what will likely emerge.

Of course, as mentioned, the Israel-Hamas war lays bare any claims of morality and exposes the hypocrisies of all sides in conflicts.

In particular the Hamas-Israel war exposes the west – led by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Europe – to an argument that the west is morally moribund as it continues its colonial/post colonial attitudes of support of Israel as the latter commits an apparent disproportionate-defence offensive against Palestine’s peoples.

The argument appears to carry weight, especially as this western axis sustains its support for Israel’s war machine even while, on international humanitarian law grounds, the atrocities being committed against Palestine’s civilian population are morally indefensible and potentially legally enforceable as war crimes.

For example; retribution for the atrocities and despicable crimes committed by Hamas against defenceless Israeli citizens does not remove culpability for the State of Israel as it delivers on an apparent intention to annihilate Hamas and all people – children, the elderly, all innocents – who may surround them.

Duty of care is not excused even if civilians are used as “human shields”, and at this juncture, it is not clear, whether that cited justification is founded on truth.

This is the position of what was once an authoritarian axis.

But what has formed is a multipolar-constellation that supports the Palestinian cause on postcolonial, Global South, and solidarity grounds.

The Questions:

So if all of this carnage is the catalyst for a new world order, what comes next?

Will we see the emergence of a parallel global institutional structure that develops as a counter-balance to the west’s post-WWII world order?

Has the west’s leading power lost its moral authority through its support for a war machine that has caused the deaths of over 10,000 people of innocent disposition, while itself refuses to be a signatory member state to the International Criminal Court and its principles of global justice?

And as such, has the west ceded persuasive moral authority to the rising constellation of once authoritarian-states that dominate the opposing bloc?

And does the west, as a consequence, find itself powerless to counter the migration of moderate independent states that are repelled by the immorality of the west’s arguments, laid bare by the Hamas-Israel war?

*******

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

First published on Radio New Zealand: 1:06 pm on 4 October 2023 

See Also: A documentary by EveningReport.nz editor Selwyn Manning on the Ahmed Zaoui case and intelligence failures.

The defection of Labour Minister Meka Whaitiri has been heralded by some as a stunning coup for Te Pāti Māori and a “courageous” step by the rebel MP. But is it really? The whole episode can also be viewed as rather farcical and shabby, reflecting very poorly on the integrity of both Whaitiri and the party welcoming her. This episode also illustrates just how much Te Pāti Maori has changed. The party once claimed to be all about the pursuit of “mana enhancing” relationships, but the contemporary version of the party is looking increasingly opportunistic.

The Māori Party was originally established when another Labour MP and minister, Tariana Turia, defected from Helen Clark’s Labour Government in 2005 over the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that dispute, Turia’s departure was a highly principled one, and carried out honourably.

Turia fought inside Labour to change its stance on the Foreshore and Seabed issue and, when she lost that battle, she took advice from a large array of supporters and resigned from her government. She also resigned from Parliament, as she understood her mandate as an MP came from being elected as a representative of the Labour Party. She soon won her seat back, gaining a mandate to establish the Māori Party – Te Pāti Māori.

In that case, the defecting MP did everything the right way, including giving her colleagues the respect of telling them that she was going and explaining why. She also was entirely upfront with the public.

There have been other notable waka jumpers who left their parties in a similar honourable fashion. Jim Anderton resigned from the Fourth Labour Government in the 1980s, Winston Peters departed from Jim Bolger’s National Government in the 1990s, and Hone Harawira left the Māori Party in 2011.

Of course, there are also examples of less honourable party hopping – from Alamein Kopu’s jump from the Alliance to set up her Wahine Māori party which propped up Jenny Shipley’s National Government, through to Brendan Horan leaving NZ First to set up his Independent Coalition. Such departures were about personal quarrels and vanities. Political philosophy and policy played no real part in their departures.

The Hollowness of Meka Whaitiri’s departure

In announcing her departure from the Labour Government on Wednesday, Meka Whaitiri failed to point to any substantive policy and philosophical differences with the party she had represented in Parliament for nearly ten years.

Likewise, yesterday Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer was unable to point to any particular reason for Whaitiri’s resignation and insisted Whaitiri had no “beef” with Labour.

Without Whaitiri being willing to provide any justification for her departure from Labour, speculation can be fairly drawn that it is simply about her own personal ambitions, gripes and vanities.

In particular, Whaitiri’s switch to Te Pāti Māori appears to be about her thwarted career ambitions. She was sacked by Jacinda Ardern in 2018 after a nasty altercation with one of her staff. Whaitiri never seemed to accept any fault in the dispute, displaying a lack of contrition and unwillingness to explain what happened. Her most notable statement following the dispute was that “In this country, we have a hierarchy; white men, white women, brown men, brown women, and sometimes brown women have to talk extra loud to be heard”.

Whaitiri was disgruntled when she did not make it back into Cabinet after the controversy, and even considered jumping ship to Te Pāti Māori in 2020. Subsequent reshuffles – especially the most recent ones under new prime minister Chris Hipkins – appear to have been the tipping point for Whaitiri, as she is said to have been aggrieved that other younger Māori MPs were promoted over her.

It also looked likely that Whaitiri would lose her ministerial position outside of Cabinet after the next election. If Labour is re-elected, the party will have less share of the vote and will have to divvy up ministerial positions with MPs from other minor parties, possibly including Te Pāti Māori. Other rising stars in Labour would also be likely to make up a refreshed Executive.

So, although Whaitiri has given up a ministerial position – and some have painted this as courageous – this was a case of her reading the writing on the wall. With this move, Whaitiri is now in a position to come back after the election as a more significant political figure, potentially even as a Cabinet Minister representing Te Pāti Māori.

Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori are letting down the electorate

Whaitiri was elected in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti as a Labour MP, but by deciding she is now a Te Pāti Māori MP she has disregarded that mandate. The principled course of action would have been for Whaitiri to stay with the Labour Party until the election, and then seek re-election for another party. The alternative would be to resign from Parliament and commence her campaign as a candidate for Te Pāti Māori.

The proportionality of Parliament has been distorted – something that the Labour Government previously stated as a reason for bringing in the waka jumping law, which Whaitiri has been able to step around. It is clear that both Te Pāti Māori and Labour have done everything they can to prevent Whaitiri from being ejected from Parliament under the waka jumping law.

Labour wants to avoid souring their relationship with Te Pāti Māori because their path back to power after the election is likely to be predicated on that party’s support. Labour has obviously calculated that to invoke the waka-jumping legislation – which they have every right and ability to do – would not be in their interests, even if it would be the principled thing to do. It also appears that Labour and its Speaker have bent over backwards to prevent Whaitiri from inadvertently triggering the legislation.

The Integrity of Parliament is in question

Much of the public will view Whaitiri’s ability to stay in Parliament as a stitch-up. The decision by the Speaker appears nonsensical in a way that can only be explained by the self-interest of Labour and Te Pāti Māori.

Now the Speaker simply expects the public to trust him on this big issue of public interest, and won’t allow the public to have the details of the negotiations and communications with Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori. But the lack of transparency means the public has no way of judging whether the Speaker’s decision was correct, or whether he has abused his position.

Although the Speaker and Te Pāti Māori are essentially claiming these issues are internal matters, there is a case to be made that all of the information should be released to the public. As RNZ’s Tim Watkin argues, “These are essentially public matters, not private ones.”

If Meka Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori want to prove their integrity over what has occurred then they will release the letter that Whaitiri sent to the Speaker. This might quell the doubts about how Whaitiri managed to stay in Parliament despite her account to the media which appeared to trigger the party-hopping legislation.

Unfortunately, Te Pāti Māori and Whaitiri appear to be trying to escape any accountability over the matter by refusing to front up. For example, yesterday Tamihere denied the requests of journalists wanting the details of Whaitiri’s communications to the Speaker, saying: “we are not accountable to U we are accountable to the law”.

What happened to Te Pāti Māori’s “mana-enhancing” approach?

Traditionally Te Pāti Māori has made a lot of their commitment to dealing with others in a “mana-enhancing” way. But this episode has raised questions about whether this commitment has been ditched, given the lack of respect shown by Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori to Whaitiri’s former colleagues.

RNZ’s Tim Watkin argues that this lack of respect has not just been to Labour, but to Parliament, the public, and to the voters of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. As with other commentators, he is astounded that “Whaitiri did not have the decency to speak to her boss” before resigning.

Watkin suggests that Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori have been most disrespectful to the voters: “After a carefully staged announcement she has not seen fit to explain herself to the public she serves. MPs are not just creatures of their electorates, but representatives of the people. And the people, quite frankly, have every right to feel kept in the dark. She is a servant of the public, yet we have so many unanswered questions.”

There is currently a lot of praise for the “masterstroke” of recruiting Whaitiri to Te Pāti Māori. Party president John Tamihere is being painted as a smart and ruthless operator who is making his party much more powerful.

And there might be more to come. Te Pāti Māori appears to be trying to attract other disgruntled and alienated politicians to their cause. Louisa Wall is rumoured to be about to announce she will stand for Te Pāti Māori against Labour in Manurewa. And today there is talk about renegade Green list MP Elizabeth Kerekere also jumping ship over her unhappiness with her party’s investigation into allegations of bullying.

The problem is that in welcoming in an array of politicians who have a personality-based conflict with their respective parties, Te Pāti Māori might become a life raft for mavericks, rather than politicians who share a coherent political philosophical basis. Tamihere himself joined Te Pāti Māori after his requests to re-join the Labour Party were rejected.

Therefore although this latest injection of momentum with Whaitiri’s defection comes at a perfect time for Te Pāti Māori, it all looks rather shabby. Yes, the party looks more powerful, and it will be able to leverage its apparent “king-maker” positioning, it might also find that it gains a reputation for being opportunistic and unprincipled.

Te Pāti Māori’s lack of mana

Whaitiri’s recruitment – possibly to be followed by the likes of Wall and Kerekere – comes during a parliamentary term in which Te Pāti Māori have decidedly raised the temperature in their allegations about the shortcomings of their political opponents. Increasingly, the Te Pāti Māori co-leaders are inclined to level allegations of racism and race to make their point.

This was, once again, very present in the justification for Whaitiri’s waka jumping, with allegations made that Labour had kept their Māori MPs in “shackles” as slaves. Tim Watkin argues that such language is “deeply loaded and insulting”. It’s especially galling to talk about Labour having imposed slavery on her, when she has been on a $250,000 salary, while her constituents “are suffering more directly as slaves to a global cost of living crisis, climate change and more.”

Ironically this is all reminiscent of Whaitiri’s win over then Te Pāti Māori co-leader Marama Fox in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti in 2017, which led Fox to exclaim on election night that Maori had made a big mistake in voting for the Labour candidates: “what I think the whānau have done is that they have gone back to the mother ship, they’ve gone back like a beaten wife to their abuser”.

Fox’s toxic allegations against the likes of Whaitiri are now being repeated by Whaitiri against her former Labour colleagues. Unfortunately, such toxic hyperbole is a sign of where Te Pāti Māori might be going. It’s hard to see how any of this is particularly “mana enhancing”.

Political Roundup: Nicky Hager strikes a win for media freedom and democracy

Do New Zealand state spies unlawfully surveil the government’s political critics? Do they spy on critical journalists? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. And yesterday the government domestic security agency was forced to apologise for one instance when they were caught spying on investigative journalist Nicky Hager.

The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (SIS) has paid Hager $66,400 in compensation and legal fees for breaching his privacy, and made an extraordinary apology to him. In return, Hager has agreed not to take the Government to court.

The payment and apology were for unlawfully obtaining two months of Hager’s phone records in an attempt to uncover the sources Hager used in writing his 2011 book Other People’s Wars. The publication was about New Zealand’s involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The book focused on the role of New Zealand military and intelligence activity that caused the deaths of civilians in Operation Burnham, and was based on information obtained from confidential sources.

Hager’s win is not just a victory for him personally, but more generally for freedom of the press and the ongoing vigilance against state authoritarianism.

Dirty politics from security services?

It was the NZ Defence Force that sought to discover who had provided Hager with the information for his book. They apparently suspected a particular Defence Force officer, but failed to find any evidence in their search of the employee’s home and mobile phone records. So they then requested that the SIS obtain Hager’s personal phone records on the basis of the journalist being involved in “espionage”.

The SIS obtained Hager’s phone records, but the information proved useless in helping the defence forces find his source. Hager suspected that he was under surveillance, and when he officially requested information about this from SIS director Rebecca Kitteridge she refused to confirm or deny anything.

Hager took the issue to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, which oversees the SIS as well as the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). The SIS was forced to confirm the spying against Hager, but Kitteridge denied any wrongdoing, argued the surveillance was justified on the basis of Hager being involved in potential “espionage” and because he was prejudicing New Zealand’s national security.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security ruled in Hager’s favour. Three years later the SIS has finally agreed to compensation and a proper apology.

The Extraordinary apology from the spies

Yesterday the SIS issued a statement that is worth quoting at length: “Investigative journalists such as Mr Hager play an important role in society, including to provide an additional check on executive functions and powers. The role of Mr Hager is considerably more difficult given his subject matter of expertise and the difficulties of obtaining information which is protected by various and numerous confidentiality mechanisms. NZSIS recognises that its actions in 2012 could have resulted in a chilling effect on such important work. Accordingly, NZSIS apologises unreservedly for breaching Mr Hager’s rights”.

In addition to the apology, the SIS said, “We recognise the important role that journalists play in a free, open and democratic society – the very society the New Zealand intelligence agencies exist to uphold.”

One of Hager’s lawyers, Steven Price, responded to say that “it is nice to see this recognition by the NZSIS of the importance of journalism to our democracy… Journalists need to be able to convey to the public important information from well-placed sources. That process should not be undermined by intelligence officials trying to unlawfully ferret out those sources.”

There is a need to have investigative journalism, and the media in general, as a properly functioning mechanism to hold the powerful to account, including the defence forces. This case shows the SIS have clearly undermined that mechanism.

Hager’s other lawyer, Felix Geiringer rightly said the decision was an “important result for journalism”. He argued that “Our intelligence services are given substantial powers for use to protect New Zealand from harm… Those powers cannot be used to go after a journalist’s sources just because the government does not like what that journalist is saying.”

It should go without saying that journalists depend on being able to assure their sources that they will remain confidential. And the state shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in this by using its immense powers of subterfuge.

Will the state spies reform themselves?

What happened to Hager was dangerous for democracy, and should never have happened. But it’s not clear that it won’t happen again.

The SIS is claiming that it has reformed itself and is now more careful with following the law and will be more transparent. But there are already signs that they are failing to live up to this.

The spy agency claims to have established a new policy for how they deal with the work of journalists. But Hager’s lawyers point out that the SIS is refusing to release that policy. Geiringer says: “The NZSIS needs a clear policy stating when the use of its powers against a journalist would be justified. There also needs to be a rule that only someone sufficiently senior in the organisation can make such a decision. And there is no basis for keeping such a policy secret.”

Hager argues: “The NZSIS needs a clear policy stating when the use of its powers against a journalist would be justified.”

Hager’s lawyers argue that their negotiations with the SIS suggest “that nothing had really changed in the internal culture of the NZSIS”.

They also point out that things might be about to get worse. Geiringer said yesterday that “there is a Bill before Parliament which would prevent our courts from reviewing decisions of intelligence services to withhold documents on national security grounds.” This is a problem, because “External oversight is essential in a democracy”.

Rottenness in the state?

This isn’t the first time Hager has received apologies and compensation from the state. He also got a “substantial” settlement from the Police due to their unlawful raid of his Wellington home after the publication of his book Dirty Politics.

Commenting on the latest state settlement, the chair of the Civil Liberties Council, Thomas Beagle tweeted yesterday, “So now both the Police and SIS have had to apologise to Nicky Hager for misuse of their powers against him. There is something very rotten here.”

Others have commented on the lack of personal accountability from those in the Defence Forces and SIS. The fact that SIS head Rebecca Kitteridge has since received a promotion to become deputy head of the Public Service Commission will also rankle.

There is a concern that some agencies of the state are becoming too politicised. And when these institutions are vested with such strong power, then this can be open to abuse that diminishes democracy. With publicity about the SIS’s abuse of the law, hopefully there will be a greater awareness of the need for more scrutiny of these institutions and this latest incident will serve to create a chilling effect on their propensity to over-reach when dealing with intimidation of the media.

Unfortunately, politicians have so far been entirely silent on the Hager controversy. But there is a need for politicians of all persuasions to come out in condemnation of what has occurred. Regardless of what anyone might think of Hager’s work, reasonable people should be able to see that there is something rotten about the way that the police and the spies have acted in these cases against a journalist. We should all be uncomfortable that someone who is seeking to expose corruption and misuse of authority by the powerful gets treated in this way.

The good news, of course, is that the payout from the SIS will now fund Hager to continue producing his important public interest journalism.

Further reading on SIS unlawful activity and national security

Thomas Manch (Stuff): Nicky Hager receives $66,000 settlement from Security Intelligence Service over phone record spying
RNZ: NZSIS agrees to pay Nicky Hager $66,400 over phone records privacy breach
1News: Journalist Nicky Hager to get $66k settlement from spy agency
BusinessDesk: Nicky Hager gets $66,000 for spy agency’s unlawful activity
No Right Turn: The SIS: spying on the government’s political critics
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Latest SIS case against Hager a reminder to the woke the secret police are not your friend
Thomas Manch (Stuff): New Zealand’s terror threat level drops from ‘medium’ to ‘low’
Kurt Bayer (Herald): New Zealand’s national terror threat level drops for first time since 2019

Other items of interest and importance today

THREE WATERS
Peter Dunne: When sorry seems to be the hardest word
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): What’s at stake and what happens next in Three Waters constitutional spat (paywalled)
Oliver Hartwich (Herald): Three Waters bill, Covid fund allocation may be legal but not in spirit of democracy
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Full steam ahead on Three Waters reforms: bill before Christmas (paywalled)
Thomas Cranmer: Questions remain over the appointment of Tuku Morgan

POLITICAL FINANCE, DONATIONS TRIALS
Toby Morris (Spinoff): It’s time we closed the political donation backdoor
George Block (Herald): National and Labour political donations trial: Chinese-NZ businessman, brothers sentenced to community work
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Businessmen given community detention for unlawful donations to National Party
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): National the winner as donations trio sentenced
Jonty Dine (RNZ): Three businessmen guilty of political donations deception avoid prison
Maria Slade (NBR): Political donations trio sentenced to community service (paywalled)

PARLIAMENT, VOTING AGE
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): National MPs campaigning for votes with Kiwis in Australia on parliamentary-funded travel
Sam Sachdeva (Newsoom): ‘Not achieved’: Civil society grades Hipkins on open government work
Henry Cooke: A defence of the gotcha question
Mike Hosking (Herald): Is the Government no longer trying? (paywalled)
Michael Neilson and Chris Knox (Herald): Poll shows what Kiwis think about lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 (paywalled)
Tom Hunt (Stuff): 16-year-olds will vote in 2025 local body elections, Wellington councillor and mayor reckon
Thomas Brocherie (Stuff): Even as a 14-year-old, it’s easy to tell my generation is worried
The Standard: What Is Labour’s Purpose This Term?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS; FINNISH PM MEETS ARDERN
Bridie Witton (Stuff): The not-so-subtle sexism that followed Finland’s Sanna Marin from Helsinki to Auckland
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): Why are some media organisations ok with such unashamed, casual sexism?
Anna Rawhiti-Connell (Spinoff): Ten things you can say about Finland’s prime minister that don’t use the word ‘party’
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Finnish PM Sanna Marin wants to go ‘next level’ with New Zealand, as she rallies against autocrats
RNZ: Jacinda Ardern and Finland PM Sanna Marin hold media briefing
1News: Finland PM Marin meets Ardern – ‘Our countries are aligned’
Eva Corlett (Guardian): Jacinda Ardern and Sanna Marin dismiss suggestion their age and gender was reason for meeting
1News: Ardern pushes back at ‘similar age’ question in Finland PM conference
Jamie Ensor and Isobel Ewing (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern hits back at suggestion she met with Finnish leader Sanna Marin due to similar age
Don Rowe (Spinoff): A brief look at the harm Australia’s 501 policy has caused
Sarah Robson (RNZ): When New Zealanders get into trouble overseas

ECONOMY, COST OF LIVING
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): Reserve Bank just landed final blow to Labour’s election hopes
Gordon Campbell: On the gaslighting about inflation
Daniel Smith (Stuff): ‘We made our children poorer’: How a previous generation became rich and left their kids to foot the bill
Nona Pelletier (RNZ): Reserve Bank seeks public feedback as part of monetary policy review
Jenny Ruth (BusinessDesk): RBNZ wants housing removed from its remit (paywalled)
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): The hidden inflation trap of an ageing population
Chlöe Swarbrick (Herald): Let’s create a fairer fiscal system for all New Zealanders
David Hargreaves (Interest): ANZ chief economist says RBNZ ‘deserves kudos for not shirking their responsibilities’
Rob Stock (Stuff): Missed payments on home loans rise as household costs increase, Centrix says
Cameron Smith (Herald): Number of Kiwis missing personal and home loan repayments increasing (paywalled)
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Consumer loan arrears on the rise
RNZ: Demand for personal and vehicle loans increasing sharply – Centrix
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): New survey shows parents are cutting back spending, under considerable strain due to skyrocketing cost of living

EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Fair Pay Agreements: Bargaining process begins after passing of controversial legislation
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): Fair Pay Agreements: Hospitality workers to make first application to start negotiations (paywalled)
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Fair Pay Agreements: Bargaining process begins after passing of controversial legislation
Isaac Davison (Herald): Stuff strike: Reporters to walk off job, picket offices today
RNZ: National Party holds ground on raising superannuation age to 67
Trent Doyle (Newshub): Unionised Stuff journalists protest nationwide against latest pay offer
RNZ: Business confidence continues to drop – ANZ survey
David Hargreaves (Interest): ANZ: ‘The strain is showing for Kiwi businesses’
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Cost increases remain ‘relentless’ for New Zealand businesses, employment intentions negative for first time since 2020 – ANZ
Nicholas Pointon (NBR): Business sentiment plunges to ‘dire levels’ – ANZ (paywalled)
Fiona Rotherham (NBR): Why Sir John Key is joining the board of Kiwi company Oritain (paywalled)
Herald: Young New Zealanders want Māori language, tikanga and Te Tiriti principles honoured at work
RNZ: Foodstuffs stores to trial new facial recognition cameras
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Goodbye, home phone line: Disputes scheme prepares for more complaints about copper withdrawal

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
Brent Edwards (NBR): Government’s olive branch to farmers over sequestration
Richard Harman: Government makes concessions to farmers on methane (paywalled)
Keith Woodford (Interest): Moving forward on methane levies
Rebecca Howard (BusinesDesk): Government backs down on sequestration for emissions trading scheme (paywalled)
 Fieldays agenda (paywalled)
Karen Rutherford (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern heckled at Fieldays as Government unveils projects to cut emissions
Gerhard Uys (Stuff): Government will bring native forests into the emissions trading scheme
Riley Kennedy (BusinessDesk): Govt reveals plan to grow forestry (paywalled)
Guy Trafford (Interest): The source of the confusion
Tina Morrison (Stuff): Fonterra and farmers risk not being able to get debt funding from banks if they don’t meet sustainability expectations
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Bumper export earnings year predicted for primary industry against backdrop of inflation
Brent Edwards (NBR): Farmers might be pessimistic but export revenue still rising (paywalled)
RNZ: US court orders ban on New Zealand exports of several fish species
Alexa Cook (Newshub): New Zealand seafood industry says US import ban on fish caught in Māui dolphin habitat not needed

HOUSING
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Falling house prices all bad news for Labour, Fitch says
RNZ: Falling house prices: Wellington leads with 15.9 percent drop in November – CoreLogic
Miriam Bell (Stuff): By the numbers: Here’s what the latest update tells us about NZ’s housing market downturn
Greg Ninness (Interest): Average value of NZ homes down $84,369 from March peak
Newshub: Property prices continue downward slide, Porirua values plunge 4.7 percent in a month
Anne Gibson (Herald): Six reasons why house prices could continue falling: ANZ revises 18% drop to 22%
Brent Melville (BusinessDesk): Home buyers paddle, as mortgage rates hit high water mark (paywalled)
Jonathan Killick (Stuff): No more nimbys? What new housing bill might mean for developers
BusinessDesk: Housing consents down 12%, as sector faces higher build costs (paywalled)
Greg Ninness (Interest): Big drop in the number of new homes consented in October
Benn Bathgate (Stuff): Businesses’ call for ‘immediate resolution’ to Rotorua’s MSD motels issue
Robin Martin (RNZ): Homeowners turn to motorhomes to avoid unruly Kāinga Ora tenants

HEALTH
Adam Burns (RNZ): Parents refusing vaccinated donor blood for baby should consider decisions carefully – Little
William Hewett (Newshub): Christopher Luxon won’t commit to Māori health outcome target
RNZ: Primary mental health care programme misses target by thousands
Hannah Martin (Stuff): Health system ‘desperately’ needing doctors won’t let new grads start til 2023 – union
Chris Lynch: “The environment we work in is killing us” ED nurse writes powerful letter to Andrew Little
Tom Taylor (RNZ): Urgent care clinics under strain
Herald Editorial: GP nurses pay parity puzzling (paywalled)
1News: Amount low-income Kiwis can claim for dental treatment increases
Helen Harvey (Taranaki Daily News): Petition to drop age of bowel cancer screening delivered to Green MP Dr Elizabeth Kerekere at Parliament
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): Objectors to supermarket pharmacies ‘disgruntled competitors’, high court told
Georgina Campbell (Herald): More women come forward with ‘nightmare’ birth experiences

COVID-19
Brent Edwards (NBR): Health response to pandemic no longer a political issue (paywalled)
Jamie Morton (Herald): Covid 19: Will NZ’s wave peak before summer holidays?
RNZ: Covid-19: End-of-year function season likely to be risky with cases on the rise

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Herald: Wellington council spending millions on half-empty office space (paywalled)
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): Auckland Council’s cost-saving committee cancels first meeting as it has nothing to discuss
Rachael Kelly (Stuff): Gore council to meet behind closed doors on Thursday to discuss mayor’s $300k governance structure
RNZ: Newly elected Kaipara mayor Craig Jepson shuts down councillor’s karakia request

CRIME, POLICE, JUSTICE
1News: Reinstating three strikes law won’t curb offending – law expert
Liz McDonald and Olivia Caldwell (Press): Gang fight at Christchurch Town Hall cited as businesses call for action on crime
RNZ: Canterbury businesses ‘menaced’ by smash and grabs and antisocial behaviour
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Tactical response model puts pressure on police staffing
Andrew Lensen and Marcin Betkier (The Conversation): We built an algorithm that predicts the length of court sentences – could AI play a role in the justice system?
Ashley Jones (Spinoff): My marriage is finally over. My fight against New Zealand’s archaic divorce law goes on

ENERGY
Craig Ashworth (Local Democracy Reporting): Hapū and Greenpeace back to court for stricter hydrogen rules
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Exporting hydrogen will force policy and economic decisions

TRANSPORT
Richard Harman (Politik): Brown backs heavy rail (paywalled)
Nikki Mandow (Newsroom): Auckland’s free EV chargers won’t be free much longer

EDUCATION
Kristie Boland (Stuff): Sex and relationships education in NZ schools not good enough, new research shows
Niva Chittock (RNZ): Little priority given to sex education in schools, teachers say

OTHER
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): Wasted
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): How a US President set NZ’s drug laws
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Does cronyism exist in our public service?
Dana Johannsen (Stuff): Public Services Commission opposes Sport NZ’s involvement with sport integrity agency
Nona Pelletier (RNZ): Significant migration to New Zealand expected in early 2023 – Kiwibank
Ankur Sabharwal (Stuff): The $57 million IT disaster at Immigration NZ
Morgan Godfery (Stuff): In Whakatāne, another Ihumātao is in the making
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): More migrants good for businesses but a headache for Reserve Bank: Kiwibank
Luke Kirkness (Rotorua Daily Post): Rainwater tanks should be mandatory on all new builds in New Zealand (paywalled)
RNZ: Treaty settlement agreement will address housing, energy issues on Chatham Islands, iwi says
Tom Kitchin (RNZ): Questions remain over mysterious Te Urewera hut fire
RNZ: Means-testing NZ Super payments one way to address scheme’s rising cost

Political Roundup: Momentum growing to reform lobbying laws

This week global anti-corruption agency Transparency International released a report on lobbying, which described New Zealand’s lack of regulation as “glaring”.

Transparency International New Zealand has developed an international comparison of New Zealand’s lobbying regulations so that MPs here can decide whether to reform this sector. Currently, a group of MPs who are members of the Global Organisation for Parliamentarians Against Corruption, are reportedly weighing up the pros and cons of regulating lobbying in New Zealand.

Transparency International compared New Zealand’s lobbying rules with ten other similar countries, including the US and Canada, and found that New Zealand is at the unregulated end of the spectrum. In contrast, US lobbyists can face prison sentences of up to five years for the activities that are carried out in New Zealand.

The report looked at the seven areas of lobbying regulation that typically occur and found that New Zealand only had two of these: the publishing of Government Ministers’ diaries and MPs’ personal, financial, and business interests. The anti-corruption report says that “the absence of independent oversight of, and personal gains from lobbying in New Zealand is glaring.”

Even lobbyists see that something is wrong

With Transparency International joining the voices highlighting the way that lobbyists have carte blanche ability to assist vested interests and corporates to get their way in New Zealand, will there now be a stronger chance of reform of corporate lobbying?

Revelations that former Cabinet Minister Kris Faafoi recently moved almost straight from the highest levels of government to be a lobbyist highlighted the lack of rules. And Transparency International’s report shows that New Zealand is an outlier in not having any enforced “cooling off” period for politicians before they move into roles with conflicts of interest.

This has become embarrassing even for those working in the lobbying industry. Former journalist Jonathan Hill wrote last month about his own experiences in the area, saying a “stand-down” period for ministers and their staff before they move into lobbying is necessary, and such a rule would help improve public confidence in the industry.

Hill says the industry has been growing very quickly recently, “and there are large sums to be made in it”, but it’s made him feel “uneasy”. Hill writes: “My personal view is that lobbying – or government relations (GR) as it is termed – is a bit of a fraudulent industry.” He goes on to explain how easy it is to lobby politicians in New Zealand.

The fact that political insiders can come into lobbying with no regulation of their conflicts of interests clearly needs attention according to Hill. He points out: “The private sector has restraint of trade, gardening leave and the principle of continuous disclosure to prevent trading on inside information. But our democracy has nothing.”

Hill also suggests that the media is enabling the lucrative lobbying model: “Media should stop using lobbyists as political commentators. This has become common, for no good reason, and serves only to raise the profile of the lobbyist. That’s why they do it.”

Hill isn’t the only one involved in lobbying with doubts about the lack of controls on conflicts of interest. Lobbyist Holly Bennett, who runs the government relations firm Awhi, told RNZ last month that she was able to go straight from working as a ministerial and policy adviser in Parliament to lobbying MPs five years ago. She bluntly states: “I think it’s entirely inappropriate. I shouldn’t have been able to do that.”

Bennett is arguing that the lobbying industry should now proactively set the rules for themselves, arguing in favour of “a code of conduct; a register; and the establishment of an industry regulatory body, similar to the Media Council.”

Politicians arguing over lobbying reform

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is under pressure to do something about the lack of lobbying regulation, especially in light of the Faafoi scandal. Last month she faced strong questions from Guyon Espiner on Morning Report about why Faafoi should be allowed to take insider information from his role as a Cabinet Minister to help private businesses.

Ardern’s response to this was that regulation of ministers becoming lobbyists was unnecessary because: “Every New Zealander knows our intentions and policy from our manifesto”. Espiner was incredulous: “Come on. Are you really making a comparison between a member of the public and a cabinet minister?”

Rightwing political commentator David Farrar responded to Ardern’s argument saying: “Is the Prime Minister really suggesting that a member of her Cabinet knows no more about what the Government will do than a member of the public? It’s ludicrous and insulting to our intelligence. The only way this could not be misinformation is if the Cabinet doesn’t actually discuss policies or legislation when they meet.”

Farrar, who claims to know most lobbyists in New Zealand, says that the information that comes to Ministers from sitting around the Cabinet and ministerial tables is invaluable to corporate clients: “Cabinet debates and decides on every major piece of government legislation. They decide on what options to proceed with, and when to backtrack (as with KiwiSaver Funds GST). They debate pros and cons in great detail. At Cabinet Committees they receive detailed advice from officials. And within their own portfolios Minister receive the most valuable info of all – oral briefings. This is the stuff so sensitive that it is never put in writing so it can’t be discovered under the OIA.”

Farrar uses the example of insider information that Ministers get on an array of commercial decisions: “There is also great commercial impact from decisions. They can decide on share sales, on regulatory regimes, on proposed taxes. The criteria for being a default KiwiSaver fund can be worth a billion dollars to a KiwiSaver fund manager.”

Former Cabinet Minister Peter Dunne has joined the chorus of those demanding reform in this area, labelling it “urgent”. He explains that “the adequacy of the rules regarding conflicts of interest for ministers and former ministers” has arisen out of the tradition in Parliament that politicians should be self-regulating: “When it comes to conflicts of interest, MPs have been largely left to manage them themselves.”

Dunne argues that the “time has surely come to formalise general conflict of interest rules for all MPs, and for the Cabinet Manual to address the specific issues raised by the Faafoi case.” He calls for “the Cabinet Office, the Speaker and the Standing Orders Committee to prioritise over the next few months updating the rules and practices regarding managing conflicts of interests for ministers and MPs.”

Perhaps Jacinda Ardern needs to talk to Labour’s last prime minister about lobbying reform. Helen Clark has now entered the debate, tweeting to Justice Minister Kiri Allan to point out that Transparency International “recommends 2 years” of a “cooling off period for political insiders after leaving taxpayer-funded positions before becoming lobbyists”.

An array of voices from across the political spectrum, including a former Labour prime minister, are now calling for reform on how vested interests can trade on inside information and connections. Will the Labour Government rise to the occasion?

Other items of interest and importance today

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Dave Armstrong (Stuff): Don’t mess with NZ – if that’s OK with everyone
Thomas Manch (Stuff): A day of pomp and pageantry in Vietnam, as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern shakes communist leaders’ hands
Claire Trevett (Herald): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s fruitful day talking trade, China and fruit with Vietnam’s highest-ranked leaders
Jo Moir (Newsroom): From elbowing into summits to Hanoi garden tours
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Ardern arrives in Vietnam to sell brand New Zealand
Claire Trevett (Herald): PM Jacinda Ardern arrives in Vietnam for business charm offensive and political meetings
Claire Trevett (Herald): PM Jacinda Ardern at the East Asia Summit: A call to do more in Myanmar, flags concern about China
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern, world leaders leave Southeast Asia summit without achieving much resolution
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): New Zealand extends Defence Force deployment in UK training Ukrainian soldiers
RNZ: Government extends Ukraine deployments, aid funding

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
Thomas Couglan (Herald): Resource Management Act replacement coming today
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Everybody hates the RMA, but will we be happy now? (paywalled)
Richard Harman (Politik): Parker’s big RMA changes (paywalled)

PARLIAMENT
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): The Facts don’t always tell the truth
Jonah Franke (Stuff): National candidate’s past support for ’50:50′ co-governance at odds with party line
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Te Pāti Māori slams government, opposition MPs for not backing voting reform bill
Duncan Garner (NBR): Is it possible to be all ‘Ruby Tui’ when NZ is going belly up? (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Waatea News): Labour and Te Pāti need to work together this election
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Beehive diaries: Which minister is in trouble for unparliamentary language
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Grappling with Governmental gobbledygook

POWER COMPANY PROFITS
1News: Calls for Govt intervention over excess power dividends
Herald: Big power companies delivering excess dividends in the billions, new study claims
No Right Turn: Privatisation screws the future

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT
RNZ: Inflation risks behaviour changes that make it harder to contain – economist
Liam Dann (Herald): Golden age for youth employment is being lost in storm of inflation fear (paywalled)
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): House price spikes of 2020/21 should’ve come as a warning (paywalled)
David Hargreaves (Interest): ANZ economists: It will take a ‘concerted effort’ to squash wage-price spiral dynamics ‘that are becoming ever more established’ in NZ
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Wave of sectors preparing for fair pay start date as unions gather momentum to launch bids
George Heagney (Stuff): Workers welcome lift in conditions due to Fair Pay Agreement
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Pay rise winners and losers: The industries where wages are soaring or stalling
Kiwiblog: Number of People On Benefits Over Time
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Hospital technicians fed up with less pay than admin staff
Adam Pearse (Herald): Nurse unions take Te Whatu Ora to court over pay equity settlement
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): House prices expected to drop another 10% by end of 2024, Westpac says
David Hargreaves (Interest): Wholesale interest rate prices may determine size of next RBNZ OCR hike, BNZ economists say
Michael Reddell: Reviewing monetary policy
Will Mace (NBR): Climate coalition or cartel collusion? (paywalled)

HOUSING
Anne Gibson (Herald): Kāinga Ora gets $2.75b extra borrowing capacity for state house building programme
Stephen Ward (Local Democracy Reporting): Housing Minister Megan Woods and Kāinga Ora concerned Hamilton heritage areas could curb intensification
Michael Neilson (Herald): Public housing waitlist drops for only second quarter since June 2015
Greg Ninness (Interest): The number of people on the waiting list for social housing has fallen for two consecutive quarters
Rachel Moore (Stuff): The deflating morning ritual of a school caretaker near emergency housing motels in central Hamilton
Kelly Makiha (Rotorua Daily Post): Fighting for Rotorua: Mayor calls for more police to deal with emergency housing crime
Kelvin McDonald (Te Ao – Māori News): Ngāti Whakaue celebrates new whānau homes

HEALTH
Murray Jones (BusinessDesk): Are we getting what we pay for in the health system?
Cécile Meier and Murray Jones (BusinessDesk): ‘When I got covid, all I got was two text messages’: Little on GPs
Jonty Dine (RNZ): Nearly half of NZers cannot afford dental care – new report
RNZ: Dental care: 40 percent New Zealanders can’t afford it – report
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Hundreds spending 24 hours in busy EDs: ‘Disaster waiting to happen’
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Bottle shops harder to open in rich areas – research
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Māori in rural New Zealand further from good healthcare – researcher
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Māori disproportionately impacted by drug overdoses – report
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): Health inequities: Rōpū claimants meet on underfunding grievances with Crown
Kelvin McDonald (Te Ao –  Māori News): Wai 2575 claimants move step closer to resolving health underfunding grievances
Herald: ‘They are choosing to go to other places’: Overseas nurses applying for NZ work visas drops by 60 per cent

COVID-19
Herald Editorial: Three years of Covid, new study suggests caution (paywalled)
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Plan to restore MIQ if needed
Nikki Macdonald (Stuff): Covid-19 NZ: How to control a pandemic without a lockdown
RNZ: Cruise ship Covid-19 ‘no cause for alarm’

TRANSPORT
Simon Wilson (Herald): Why is a new harbour crossing back in the news? (paywalled)
Thomas Coughan (Herald): Bridge or tunnel? Government asks Aucklanders what they want for next crossing
Finn Blackwell (RNZ): New Auckland harbour crossing debate rolls on as government asks public for views
David Skipwith (Stuff): Aucklanders to have their say on harbour crossing options, including a tunnel
RNZ: Waka Kotahi’s $8b upgrade programme considers toll charges
1News: NZTA proposes sweeping state highway speed limit decreases
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): MPs and rail activists clash on protest tactics (paywalled)

THREE WATERS
Graham Adams (The Platform): Hey presto… Three Waters becomes Five Waters!
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Explainer: MPs propose fixes to Government’s controversial water reforms (paywalled)
Andrew Dickens (Newstalk ZB): Co-governance should be the least of your worries

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Craig Ashworth (Local Democracy Reporting): Māori wards did not inspire voters: What next to boost democracy?
The Facts: Alpha-bias- surnames in the top 3 won >50% of elections*
Felix Desmarais (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua cycleway to be removed for car parks

EDUCATION
John Gerritsen (RNZ): Covid-19: Students embrace ‘bare minimum’ approach to learning after disrupted years
Alex Penk: Will today’s students still have the opportunity to learn critical thinking?
RNZ: Checkpoint: Nursing students call for paid placements – Shane Reti responds
Ella Henry (Spinoff): Busting the myths about mātauranga Māori

SPY AGENCIES, NATIONAL SECURITY
Chris Trotter: The “Us versus Them” worldview
Tom Peters: New Zealand national security briefing promotes war and censorship
RNZ: Spy agency uses ‘computer network exploitation’ to take digital information

ENVIRONMENT
Thomas Cranmer: ‘We made a National Park disappear’
Jeremy Wilkinson (Open Justice Reporting): Kiribati refugee claims climate change crisis prevents him from returning home
Mildred Armah (Stuff): Climate change a ‘fundamental’ threat to livelihood of Pacific people – report
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Māori get climate say after Shaw gaffes
Tom Powell (Stuff): Did the Government get agricultural emissions levy plan right?
Rod Oram (Newsroom): Climate summit clogged by indecision
Rod Oram (Newsroom): NZ absent on COP27 agriculture day
Gillian Blythe (Newsroom): Climate change threatens drinking water, crops, infrastructure – Water NZ
Will Harvie (Stuff): Cabinet to consider proposed refund scheme for bottles, cans before end of year
Will Trafford (Te Ao – Māori News): Protestors pay $400 for bypass whenua; government says not for sale

MEDIA
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): The end of a golden era at TVNZ – and the mystery of what comes next
Gavin Ellis: Back to the future to train the next generation of journalists
Damien Venuto and Isaac Davison (Stuff): Strike action possible as Stuff and union grapple over pay (paywalled)

SPORT
Imogen Wells (Newshub): Newshub-Reid Research poll: Where New Zealanders stand on banning alcohol advertising and sponsorship in sport
Stuff: Acting PM says Black Ferns may not get a parade but ‘an event’ after World Cup win
James Perry (Te Ao – Māori News): Government mulls Black Ferns celebration
Martin Devlin (NBR): Can women’s rugby be financially sustainable? (paywalled)
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: Has Fifa learned anything from its Qatar fiasco?

OTHER
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Productivity Commission Chairman Ganesh Nana argues that New Zealand needs a major reset of immigration policy
Sasha Borissenko (Herald): Legal aid pay rise a drop in the ocean (paywalled)
Waatea News: Judges challenged to fix bias in system
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Camera rollout an opportunity lost, says fishing industry (paywalled)
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Police investigate assaults on Auckland prisoners
Samuel Wat (RNZ): Cost of living troubles stretch animal shelters

Political Roundup: Labour’s fraught battle to retain the Māori vote

Labour’s poll results are trending down. Yesterday’s Curia poll put the party down two points to just 33 per cent, while National is up three points to 37 per cent. When it comes to next year’s election, a key constituency for Labour will be Māori voters, especially in the Māori seats which are facing a strong challenge from Te Pati Māori.

Yet Labour’s support amongst Māori also seems to be plummeting. A poll earlier in the year by Horizon Research for The Hui, showed Labour’s support had dropped from 54 per cent in 2020, to just 37 per cent this year. The seventeen-point drop was a sign, according to Te Pati Māori’s co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, that in Māoridom, “The red wave is well and truly over”. National’s Shane Reti also pronounced “the Māori love affair with Labour is well and truly over.”

Has Labour let down Māori?

When Labour won 50 per cent of the vote in 2020, with a historic majority in Parliament, there was a belief amongst commentators that Labour would now be able to deliver for their Māori constituency. There was a belief that this triumphant result, and winning back all the Māori electorates in 2017, was in part due to Māori voters trusting Labour to deliver on their promises of better housing, healthcare, and reduced economic inequality. Such a focus on lifting living standards was especially appealing to working class Māori.

Unfortunately, those results haven’t been delivered. Under Labour there continues to be a growing disparity between rich and poor, and poverty and inequality have been exacerbated. For example, the housing crisis Labour inherited from National, has now morphed into a “housing catastrophe”, and Labour seem largely uninterested in doing anything about this. On top of this, we now have a cost of living crisis, and wages are not keeping up with rising prices.

The powerful role of the Labour Māori caucus in government

One of the reasons that Māori might have believed Ardern’s Government would deliver in the areas that poor and working class Māori care about, is that the Māori caucus in Labour is the biggest ever. Commentators said that the fifteen Māori MPs in Government would have strong leverage over Ardern and her fellow ministers. What’s more, six out of the 20 Cabinet ministers are Māori – which is proportionally much greater than wider society.

Have the Māori MPs and ministers delivered? There is no doubt they have been highly influential. As leftwing commentator Martyn Bradbury says, “The Maori Caucus inside Labour are now the largest and most powerful faction” in the party. The Prime Minister and her colleagues have therefore not been able to ignore the demands and priorities of Labour’s Māori caucus.

In fact, some commentators paint a picture of Ardern as being held hostage to the agendas of the senior Maori leaders such as Nanaia Mahuta and Willie Jackson. Journalist Graham Adams, for example, has written about how Ardern doesn’t show any great enthusiasm for, or belief in, her Government’s controversial Three Waters reform programme, and as a very cautious and poll-driven leader, “would normally back away from any policy as widely disliked as Three Waters soon after the poll results arrived on her desk”.

Adams argues that the Māori caucus has pursued many of the most important and controversial reform agendas of the current Government – this “includes setting up a separate Māori Health Authority, easing the path to Māori wards, handing more power to iwi in the conservation estate, in local government, and the Resource Management Act”.

Have Labour’s Māori MPs focused on the right issues?

Generally, the Māori caucus in Labour has been focused on constitutional and cultural reforms. But are these the right ones? Unfortunately for Labour, the main concerns of Māori voters – especially those who are struggling – are more materialist, such as housing and employment.

Much of what the Labour Government has been delivering for Māori often looks more like symbolism and bureaucracy. And in many cases, it’s been about assisting more middle class Māori supporters, especially those in business. Hence last year Willie Jackson convinced his government to make 5 per cent of their $42 billion procurement budget available to Māori businesses.

This all raises the question of whether Labour’s Māori MPs have focused on the right issues. Or, perhaps the question is whether Labour has become too focused on more elite or middle class Māori concerns.

In a sense, the caucus is having to respond to the more radical Te Pati Māori, which is increasingly Tiriti-focused and wanting constitutional change, rather than concerned with traditional Labour issues. Labour MPs therefore have to follow that agenda too. They need to convince Māori constituencies that they’ve won some big concessions off the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

If not, then what have the Labour Māori MPs got to show to their voters when it comes to the next election? If they can’t show progress on housing, standards of living, improved healthcare etc, the hope surely is that they can at least point to advances in te reo, the school curriculum, more visible Māori in leadership and business, and so forth.

Will these be enough? Leftwing commentator Chris Trotter suggests not: “Creating Māori wards is not the same as creating jobs. Building support for profound constitutional change in Aotearoa-New Zealand is not the same as building houses.”

The changing power of Labour Māori caucus

This week the Herald’s Audrey Young has written an evaluation of the Māori Cabinet ministers, some of which is quite critical. For instance, she labels Kevin Davis “Pedestrian”, pointing out that he got “the new portfolio of Māori-Crown relations in the first term but has been almost invisible in promoting the Government’s overall strategy to the public.” Young also labels Peeni Henare as “Sheltered” in the Cabinet, saying he “has not been tested politically and shows no signs of boldness.”

Probably the most critical is her evaluation of Nanaia Mahuta, who Young labels “Distracted”. Young says Mahuta is “distracted by Three Waters reforms and a series of stories about public sector contracts awarded to her consultant husband. They have reached such a pitch that she herself should refer the matter to the Public Service Commission or Auditor-General to get an independent opinion and draw a line under it.”

Willie Jackson and Kiri Allan receive more positive evaluations – the latter is said to be a “potential deputy Labour leader” and a “firm favourite of Jacinda Ardern.”

But it’s Jackson that is acknowledged as the real leader of the Māori caucus in Labour – Young reports that: “Insiders confirm appearances – that the most active and influential member of the caucus is Cabinet minister Willie Jackson.” She adds that he’s “the only one actively promoting and defending co-governance.” And elsewhere, Young has explained that Jackson is “still the go-to guy for hands-on co-ordination within the Māori caucus and within Māoridom peak groups and iwi leaders.”

The Māori Labour MPs need to keep their government delivering

With Labour’s post-Covid popularity steadily on the decline, there are many on the left who want Labour to revert to more traditional and popular leftwing policies, and jettison the strong pursuit of cultural and constitutional change.

For example, the Three Waters reform programme has become an albatross around the Government’s neck, which few are willing to defend. It will continue to cost Labour popular support. But should Labour pull back on the more controversial parts of the programme, such as giving half of the control over water assets to iwi?

The problem is that to do so would be to give Te Pati Māori a huge stick to beat Labour with. It could seriously jeopardise Labour’s hold on their Māori seats next year. Likewise, pulling back on the Government’s co-governance agenda would create havoc for the Māori caucus. A Māori caucus rebellion in Labour would be guaranteed.

Therefore, Ardern is in something of a bind. She will have to continue juggling the demands of the powerful Māori caucus while also being aware that some of that agenda might be making her government unpopular.

But Ardern would be wise to realise that when it comes down to it, most Māori voters are quite similar to non-Māori voters in caring more about the delivery of the basics – especially an improved standard of living. In this regard, Ardern should take note that the Horizon poll of Māori voters earlier this year pointed to why Māori voters were leaving Labour: “As inflation begins to bite, 72 percent say the cost of living is the main issue they will vote on, followed by housing and health.”

Other items of interest and importance today

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
Jason Walls (Herald): Government paid private Three Waters consultants $16 million last financial year but DIA defends spending
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): Labour has just 44 days before election for its legislative agenda
Jane Clifton (Listener/Herald): How the Government missed its chance to take on the big Aussie banks (paywalled)
Claire Trevett (Herald): National confirms Chris Bishop as campaign chair, Covid-19 role gone
Benedict Collins (1News): Labour’s Lorck ‘doing my best’ to improve behaviour after new claims

MONARCHY
Josie Pagani (Stuff): Don’t jump the gun on the monarchy. There’s a Treaty to consider
Sarah Jocelyn and Professor Andrew Geddis (Newsroom): How NZ could become a republic
Adam Pearse (Herald): Māori leader Esther Jessop calls taihoa on republic debate as royals grieve
Newshub: Queen Elizabeth’s death: Why NZ’s public holiday isn’t on same day as UK funeral
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to meet King Charles, Prince William
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk): I can’t see that Marama Davidson did anything wrong

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS
Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland mayoralty: Viv Beck withdraws from race
Tony Wall and Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland mayoralty: The hints Viv Beck left about withdrawing from the race
Matthew Hooton (Herald): Super City’s two-horse race between Wayne Brown, Efeso Collins (paywalled)
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Advantage, Collins but it’s far from match point
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland mayoralty: Efeso Collins plans to ditch his car one day a week – he wants others to do the same
Glenn McLean (Stuff): Facts not being delivered in New Plymouth mayoral race

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND INEQUALITY
Felix Walton (RNZ): Rising cost of groceries could drive unhealthy choices
Richard Harman: Robertson has plenty to worry about (paywalled)
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): GDP figures hit the sweet spot for Grant Robertson politically (paywalled)
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): Which parts of the NZ economy are out of whack
Anne Gibson (Herald): Horrific construction fatalities and injuries: But is building really the riskiest job? (paywalled)
Nina Santos (Herald): Myth-busting gender and ethnic pay gap excuses (paywalled)
Herald Editorial: We’re paying more for airfares, time to boost passenger rights (paywalled)

HOUSING
Jonathan Killick (Stuff): Auckland’s housing affordability by the numbers: A story of haves and have-nots
Felix Desmarais (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua on a ‘precipice’ as mayor meets with ministers about motels
RNZ: Majority of suburbs in main centres experience slide in property values
Newshub: Aotearoa’s property values continue to fall, 80 percent of suburbs record a drop in value

COVID
Matthew Brockett (Bloomberg): Jacinda Ardern’s Feted Covid Response Could Yet Be Her Undoing
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): New Zealand is now as it was – but nothing is the same
David Welch and Michael Plank (The Conversation): With most mandatory public health measures gone, is NZ well prepared for the next COVID wave?
David Seymour (Herald): Why we need an independent Covid response inquiry (paywalled)
Mike Hosking (Newstalk): Time to get on with a Covid inquiry

HEALTH
Lillian Hanly (1News): Little met with silent protest over nurses’ pay equity agreement
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Andrew Little gets applause – for the wrong reason – at nurses’ conference
Emma Houpt (Herald): Hundreds of Bay of Plenty children waiting for dental surgery
Emma Houpt (Herald): Bay of Plenty’s Trinity Koha Dental Clinic provides more than $600k worth of free dental care

EDUCATION
Lee Kenny (Stuff): Fresh blow to mega polytech Te Pūkenga as finance boss resigns months into the job
Herald: Government announces $44m to increase teacher numbers, support students affected by Covid
Caroline Williams (Stuff): Massey University lecturer told Māori students they ‘don’t look Māori’

CLIMATE
RNZ: Rate of sea-level rise around New Zealand doubles in the past 60 years – Stats NZ
Rob Stock (Stuff): Is New Zealand’s plan for ‘green’ government bonds just smoke and mirrors?
Brent Edwards (NBR): Concerns about the Government’s emissions reduction plan (paywalled)
Paul Callister and Robert McLachlan (The Conversation): NZ has announced a biofuel mandate to cut transport emissions, but that could be the worst option for the climate
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Climate crisis: The monotony of the extremes
Tim Hunter (NBR): Biomass: the burning question (paywalled)

TE REO MĀORI
Damien Venuto (Herald): Is it time to change the name of New Zealand to Aotearoa?
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Has Te reo elitism become Professional Managerial Class brownwash?
Joris De Bres (Spinoff): The ‘McMāori’ saga and the business of te reo
Rawiri Waititi (Herald): From a kohanga sandpit to playing in New Zealand’s biggest playground

OTHER
RNZ: Treasury rips into Oranga Tamariki for loose fiscal controls
RNZ: New Zealand announces new ambassador to China
Karl du Fresne: Ken Douglas: one of the last of the old school

Political Roundup: Why New Zealand’s shift to a republic will be thwarted

The death of Queen Elizabeth and the ascension to the throne of King Charles has reignited the debate on whether New Zealand should become a republic. But despite strong arguments in favour of shifting to a republic, such a move is unlikely to occur anytime soon.

What will stop the republican movement gaining ground and winning over a majority of New Zealanders to ditch the monarchy? The answer is Treaty politics.

The shift to a republic cannot be separated from this now-dominant aspect of New Zealand politics. To argue for a shift to a republic in 2022 is to enter into a debate about the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Māori language version, Te Tiriti O Waitangi in our constitutional framework. These are very fraught debates, which have the potential to divide a nation.

A Republic is possible

Technically, a shift to a republic could be quite straightforward in terms of the Treaty. After all the British Crown no longer actually has Treaty responsibilities – those are now with the New Zealand Government. A move to a republic could, with a simple change of law, shift the formal Treaty partnership to the new head of state.

As Geoffrey Palmer said this week, “The fact that you get a new head of state wouldn’t affect at all the obligations in relation to the treaty… I know some people think it would, but it wouldn’t.”

There has long been a myth that the Treaty of Waitangi would be diminished by the demise of the monarchy in this country. Countless scholars show that this concern is not warranted. And surveys show that Māori are keener on becoming a republic than others.

New constitutional debates will be part of republicanism

However, constitutional debates have evolved significantly in this country, and now centre on the Treaty and indigenous rights. Witness recent governments’ incorporation of the Treaty into governing arrangements. The whole design of the Three Waters reform programme is centrally based on the role of iwi, for example.

The concept of co-governance has become an innovation that politicians are seeking to insert into more institutions. And many other proposals in the Labour Government’s He Puapua document will at some stage need to be discussed in terms of constitutional changes.

So any debate about shifting to a republic will automatically involve important consideration of how the Treaty and indigenous rights will be recognised and elevated in a new constitution. Māori aspirations will therefore reshape the republican movement – because in 2022 and onwards you can no longer deal with constitutional reform such as republicanism without a very serious debate about radical constitutional change involving tangata whenua.

Don McKinnon was reported this week as believing that “Māori would not agree to a republic without seeking concessions from the Government.” He told journalist Richard Harman, “Māori signed the treaty with the British Crown, and I would think there’d be a significant number of Māori who say, well, we’re not prepared to give up being a realm until we see far more equality within New Zealand today.” Similarly, law professor Andrew Geddis is quoted today saying a shift to a republic would require some sort of “reconceptualisation of Te Tiriti”.

The big republican debate will therefore be about placing the Treaty at the centre of the new constitution. And this could involve significant changes to the whole political system, including Parliament.

As political commentator and former MP Liz Gordon writes this week, “Māori will, if the matter arises, be asking for significantly more say in the governance of the nation. The Treaty of Waitangi, itself a kind of balance of powers, will need to be rewritten to provide shared kawanatanga and a new model of tino rangatiratanga.” And she is optimistic that this can be achieved, especially if such a model arises from Te Ao Māori itself: “if Māori can come together and propose a form of leadership that shares esteem and powers and takes us forward, such proposals would be unstoppable.”

For some in the republican movement these discussions about the role of the Treaty and Māori will be seen as a barrier to change, as debates that might once have simply been about whether New Zealand deserves to have a head of state determined by birth in aristocratic family in a far-off country, will instead be about more charged ethnicity and race issues.

Republicanism as a culture war

In this new environment, it might prove more difficult to win over support for a republic. While many New Zealanders, both Māori and pakeha, will be keen on ditching King Charles as our head of state, they might wince at the proposals for who replaces him, and what comes with that republicanism.

Although the current leaders of the Labour and National parties might profess to be republicans, they will run a mile from being associated with culture wars. Both Jacinda Ardern and Christopher Luxon will be keen to distances themselves from the fallout from what could be an ugly and divisive debate on New Zealand’s constitutional future. This isn’t simply about being cowardly and unwilling to front something they believe in, it’s more profound than that – not wanting to see the country descend into acrimonious debate with the potential to divide even their own parties and supporters.

When it comes down to it, there’s probably only a small proportion of New Zealand society who are fervent monarchists or republicans. People generally don’t feel that strongly about who our head of state is. In fact, a recent survey showed that only 18% of the public even know who occupies this position. But a much larger proportion of society cares about issues of racial injustice and radical reforms. It’s no surprise that polls show a large majority of New Zealanders don’t support the Government’s Three Waters reforms – probably largely due to the perception that they are a race-based reform giving large elements of control to unelected iwi.

Should the republican movement pursue “minimalist republicanism” or “Treaty republicanism”?

If New Zealand moves to a republic, there are many elements of a new constitution that might be easily agreed upon. The new head of state might be given a title such as Rangatira or Ariki.

But the constitutional reforms that could go along with the transition might be more radical. Therefore, the New Zealand Republican Movement has something of a dilemma in how it pursues change.

Does it adopt a “minimalist republican” reform movement, in which basic change is advocated – simply making the current office of Governor General the new head of state, with a reformed Parliamentary appointment process? Or does it look to more widespread constitutional reform, especially that which seeks to fulfill the aspirations of those demanding a more Treaty-based political system.

The former strategy might be more successful in terms of achieving a republic. The latter is more in touch with the Zeitgeist and will help get groups such as iwi leaders, Te Pati Māori and the Greens on side. But this option also threatens to open a real can of worms.

The republican debates we had in the 1980s and 1990s are long over. Back then it was about “minimalist republicanism” – just getting rid of the monarchy. It’s now about “Treaty-based republicanism”.

Most commentators haven’t caught up with this new reality. Much of the constitutional debate over the last few days has been about whether our new head of state would be a president, elected or appointed by Parliament, and how to avoid political capture of the new role.

These are all good discussions to have. But in the end, they miss the bigger questions – which will be around the Treaty, and what role a new republic would have for Māori, and how we embody a multi-ethnic society in constitutional arrangements.

There has been a sense in which New Zealand has been sleepwalking towards a republic, or that we are already a “de facto republic”. Many feel that a final shift to make a republic official is just a matter of launching a new campaign, referendum, or piece of legislation. But the recent Māori political and constitutional renaissance changes all of that. Republicans will have to grapple with demands for more than just a change of a law to replace the King with the Governor General.

For a good illustration of this change, it’s worth noting that in 2017 Te Pati Māori strongly opposed New Zealand becoming a republic but, in 2022, they are leading the charge. This year they have a new policy: “Te Pāti Māori are calling to remove the British royal family as head of state, and move Aotearoa to a Te Tiriti o Waitangi based nation.” And as part of this, they want bigger republican changes, including a Māori Parliament which would operate alongside the present one.

Will this version of republicanism be a goer? Probably not for quite a while yet.

Further reading on the monarchy

Tess McClure (Guardian): Apathy in New Zealand – but little desire for change – as King Charles’s reign begins
Michael Neilson (Herald): Queen’s death raises questions over New Zealand’s constitutional future
Henry Cooke (Guardian): Is this when New Zealand breaks up with the monarchy? Don’t count on it
Michael Neilson (Herald): Queen Elizabeth II death: New Zealand MPs give views on republic question
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Christopher Luxon rules out Republic referendum in first term if he became PM
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Queen Elizabeth death: Jacinda Ardern, Christopher Luxon aren’t interested in New Zealand republic debate yet
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Republicanism not on Jacinda Ardern’s agenda – even if it’s inevitable
Andrea Vance (Stuff): How King Charles will capitalise on a tide of sympathy following the Queen’s death
Richard Prebble: Our constitutional monarchy works well
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): The unpublished blueprint to bring home NZ’s head of state
Peter Dunne: Could Charles III push New Zealand to become a republic?
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Queen Elizabeth’s death: Marama Davidson uses tribute to speak of monarchy’s colonialist legacy
Gideon Porter (Waatea News): Republicanism a mirage says Piripi
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): Conversation about republicanism could be most divisive debate in our history
Gordon Campbell: On being co-dependent on the royals
Kirsty Wynn (Herald): Royal visit to NZ on cards as King Charles III, Camilla, Prince William, Princess Catherine and the kids look to tour Australia
Brigitte Morten (NBR): Keep calm, mourn, carry on (paywalled)
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): With grief comes trauma and the potential for healing too
Mike Hosking (Newstalk): There’s no need for the republic debate
Joe Bennett (Stuff): Time to sever the tie to these soap opera characters?

Other items of interest and importance today

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT
Audrey Young (Herald): Who’s the power broker in Labour’s Māori caucus? (paywalled)
Max Rashbrooke Lisa Marriott (Stuff): Two decades of donation scandals – so where are the prosecutions?
Craig Renney (Stuff): We may have more public servants, but NZ’s public sector isn’t bloated
James Perry (Māori TV): Electoral system review begins – public asked for their views
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Green party says it has nothing to hide over new rules for candidates (paywalled)
Victoria Young (BusinessDesk): Deloitte makes healthcare play (paywalled)

HOUSING
Talia Parker (Herald): Tauranga housing report warns of people living in cars, garages amid shortage
RNZ: Central government will ‘probably’ intervene in Christchurch housing density row, mayor says
Tina Law and Liz McDonald (Stuff): Christchurch seeks bespoke plan after ‘no’ vote on housing density
John MacDonald (Herald): Thumbs up for Christchurch flipping the bird at the Government
Tom Hunt (Stuff): Experts warn of New Zealand’s next construction saga amid building boom
Nona Pelletier (RNZ): Housing market slump turnaround unlikely before mid-2023
Anne Gibson (Herald): House prices dropping $322 a day: Real Estate Institute figures out for August
Anne Gibson (Herald): How economists reacted to house prices falling $322 a day (paywalled)
Stephen Minto (Daily Blog): 6 steps to fix the Labour/Green driven affordable housing crisis

ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND INEQUALITY
Alice Snedden (Spinoff): One easy step to close the wealth gap entirely
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): Locked out Kawerau workers accept higher Essity pay offer with ‘relief’
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): How much higher could food prices in NZ go?
Brooke van Velden (Herald): NZ’s worker shortage is dire – govt and immigration need to move fast

COVID
Luke Malpass (Stuff): It isn’t easy being Green: Most MPs drop masks in Parliament as rule relax
Herald: Editorial – Taking back control as Covid eases (paywalled)
John MacDonald (Herald): The vax rules are going, so should the punishments

TE REO MĀORI
Carl Mika (The Conversation): Tokenism and te reo Māori: why some things just shouldn’t be translated
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): How much reo Māori do people need to do business in NZ?
Dr Awanui Te Huia (Newsroom): Challenges ahead for young speakers of te reo

OTHER
Akula Sharma (Herald): Iwi calls for true founding day recognition in Tamaki Makaurau
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): The $15b infrastructure project nobody really wants
Anthony Doesburg (Newsroom): Lee Vandervis: Dunner stunner in waiting
James Halpin (Stuff): Anti-government group tried to get Brian Tamaki to ‘feral’ Parliament protest
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Well known union movement giant Ken Douglas dies
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Police must change practices around photo taking – Deputy Privacy Commissioner
Kiri Gillespie (Herald): Better bus network needed for congestion charging to work (paywalled)
Gordon Campbell: On a fun summer, with covid anxiety
Robert McCulloch: Why I’m blogging less: government spin & propaganda to “neutralize” it have left me exasperated

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse whether the sun is setting on former United States President Donald Trump and Trumpism in general.

Specifically, they examine how numerous law suits and federal investigations are eroding Trump’s credibility and the power behind what was once a president of populism and who was seemingly untouchable.

Our questions include:

What is the most damning of allegations?

How serious was the apparent breach of classified and top secret information? And, does this reflect a wider corruption within the United States’ security intelligence agencies?

What can we expect next from the FBI investigation and the US Department of Justice?

And politically, Donald Trump seems to have a firm grip on the Republican Party. His loyalists seem to be winning the GOP primaries and lining up a field of Trumpist candidates for this year’s mid-term elections.

But recent polls in the United States show how dominating the primaries does not necessarily mean Trump’s preferred candidates will take the state legislatures, and indeed the US Congress by storm.

Have US voters had enough of the ultra-conservatism, the controversy, the chaos and alleged illegalities that define Trumpism?

Despite US President Joe Biden having low approval ratings in a raft of US polls, will the Democrats hold onto power in the US Senate later this year?

And finally, what does all of this mean for Trump himself as he eyes whether to push forward as the GOP’s leading nominee and potentially the presumptive candidate for president of the United States?

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.