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.

Last week, at the end of the long summer shutdown of Auckland’s train services, messages came through from AT about a limited restart on 15 January, though there would be no trains between Waitematā and Newmarket.

Waitematā? When I looked it up in Google maps the top entry was of course the Harbour; followed by the former DHB (now Te Whatu Ora, Waitematā) which covered North Auckland and West Auckland, but not Auckland Central. When I tried the AT app’s Journey Planner, there was a rugby club in Henderson; but no train station.

In yesterday’s service announcements that they referred to Waitematā Station (Britomart). Today there was an electronic signboard at the station with a red line through ‘Britomart’ and a notice that the station was now to be called Waitematā. However, the main, very large, signboard – showing train departures, still called the place ‘Britomart Train Station’. The announcements on board the train said ‘Britomart’. (And the train, which was running late, skipped Newmarket Station entirely, with no warning that I had detected, though I might not have been paying full attention; normally more people get out of the train at Newmarket than at the Downtown station, whatever the current name for Downtown Auckland is.)

Today I looked up Waitematā Station in the NZ Herald’s app. There’s a story from 9 August which mentions Waitematā/Britomart in passing. Then there was a 28 May story about Waitematā Police at a petrol station. Then I hit gold dust, a story from 16 March Britomart to be renamed as seven Auckland railway stations receive new names. It’s a story I have no memory of; I recall nothing at the time on the radio or television news networks. This is confirmed by checking RNZ’s news sites, though there was a cryptic story on 9 April New Zealand cities suffering crisis of identity – architect. This RNZ story includes this text: “Britomart Station which has thankfully been renamed Waitematā”. It mentions the names of the other stations although an “artist’s impression” of ‘Karanga-a-Hape’ still shows it as Karangahape. Mt Eden will be changed to Maungawhau, and the new Aotea Station has been renamed ‘Te Waihorotiu’ (which to me, having worked at Longburn while a student, has the resonance of a Hamilton freezing works with its outlet onto the ‘wai’ of the Waikato River).

I am a bit of a news junkie, though I pay particular attention to the mainstream media because I’m interested in the news that most people most readily get. As much as I like to know what is happening, I also like to know what people believe is happening; or not happening, as the case may be. I am pretty sure that most people in Auckland still have no idea about the renames of their stations.

While I believe the renaming of the Aotea Station will prove to be the most problematic – when people find out about it, that is – I have problems with the replacement of the name Britomart with Waitematā. Waitematā as a place name has historically always been associated with Auckland’s northwest. Tim Shadbolt’s first stint as a mayor was in Waitematā City, a composite place made up from Titirangi, Te Atatū, Lincoln and Waitākere. Before that, the name was most associated with Michael Bassett’s old electorate, an electoral district that from 1871 to 1978 referred to lands that would now mostly be in Upper Harbour and Te Atatū. Waitematā is at best a bland name for the Downtown station; a name that undermines the heritage of Waitematā as a name.

Further the name Britomart resonates with the early years of contact between British subjects and Aotearoans; the name Coromandel has a similar background. And will Britomart Place also be renamed; and Britomart Shopping Mall? Britomart is a name with a precise identity of place; Waitematā not so.

Name changes in New Zealand have been problematic, and also incomplete. The change of name from Mount Egmont to Mount Taranaki was widely supported, but the national park is still Egmont National Park. I was also strongly in favour of proposal to rename Victoria University of Wellington to The University of Wellington; I have a strong attachment to that august(ish) place of learning, yet others with similarly strong attachments couldn’t stomach the change, so it didn’t happen. I am not a fuddy-duddy conservative, unlike some people who resist name changes.

The biggest puzzle to me is why, back in March, the mainstream media organisations did not consider these name changes to be news. And they still don’t think the new names are news.

My sense is that a substantial number of Auckland’s transport users will resent these name changes, and will feel that they have been imposed on them without consultation, especially as it all seems to be part of the unpopular co-governance agenda which was rejected by the Aotearoan public in October. (The articles cited above certainly point to these name changes as being co-governance by stealth.) Yet the main blame – if that’s the right word – must go onto the mainstream media; not the former government, which has already faced the consequences of its arrogance. Surely the NZ Herald or RNZ or TVNZ or Newshub could have seen that this was a story?

I am reminded of the saga of the decimal coin designs in 1966 (see New Zealand adopts decimal currency), when the original secretly designed decimal coin motifs were leaked to the media by Robert Muldoon, and how the putting-right of that bureaucratic fiasco launched his subsequent political career. Once the public had input into the designs, the uncluttered James Berry set was chosen, and all agreed that his designs were a vast improvement on the originals.

Naming places and designing coin-faces might seems like small matters. But such small matters can prove to be our greatest tests of democracy.

When I returned home today, I caught a bus at a place named ‘Taha Whakararo o te Tiriti o Albert’. It looks to me with my imperfect knowledge of Te Reo that it was a reference to the thoughts of Prince Albert (Queen’s consort in 1840) about the Treaty of Waitangi (and Albert was a thinker). But, in translation, it turned out to be the ‘Lower Albert Street’ bus stop.

Some more whakaaro about place names

I find that the present promotion of Māori as New Zealand’s pre-eminent language of governance to be somewhat shallow. Take the ‘Aotearoa’ lobby. We hear the word ‘Aotearoa’ a lot in political theatre, but we almost never hear the demonym ‘Aotearoan’. (As a contrast, we hear the words ‘Australia’ and ‘Australian’ in near-equal measure.) I do my best to redress the imbalance, by using ‘Aotearoan’ more than I use ‘Aotearoa’; the promotion of ‘Aotearoan’ is a burden that I wish more others would share.

Next, my educative life took place in a major Aotearoan city, Papaioea. But the only time I ever hear the beautiful name of my home city is by weather forecasters during Māori Language Week. (Indeed, the suburb in which I lived, Hokowhitu, has most probably had more residents with PhD degrees than any other suburb in Aotearoa, at least between 1970 and 2020. I have cultural origins of science and learning of which I am proud, even if I didn’t quite manage to complete my own PhD!)

I also note that I presently live near to the former Crown Lynn site. A street there – Waikomiti Street – has the original name for my suburb. Indeed, I suspect that in my lifetime my suburb may revert to that name. I am settled in West Auckland, so I may indeed – many years from now – come to rest in peace in Waikomiti. My basic epitaph, of my places, may prove to be:

Ōtaki
Paekākāriki
Hokowhitu
Papaioea
Waikomiti

I belong here. I don’t need to have Māori ancestry to prove that. But, as Aotearoan as I am, I am first and foremost a citizen of the world. I do not believe in Aotearoan or any other kind of exceptionalism. I do not believe in looking inward, wishing that Aotearoa had remained undiscovered by non-Māori, as a response to the past and present arrogances of our unbalanced world. Names like Britomart and Coromandel remind us of Greece, India, and England.

*******

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.

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

New Zealand’s Te Pāti Māori has handed over its petition — with 70,000 signatures — calling for the country to officially be named Aotearoa.

It is on our passports, on our money, and in our national anthem. But Aotearoa is not our official name, yet.

The petition was delivered to Parliament today. It calls to change the country’s official name to Aotearoa, and begin a process to restore te reo Māori names for all towns, cities, and places by 2026.

“Whether you’re for or against, the thing is everyone knows that Aotearoa is a legitimate name given to this country by Kupe — not by Governor Grey or any written book, this is well before any of those things,” Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said.

Te Reo fluency among Māori dropped from 90 percent in 1910 to 26 percent in 1950.

Today, just 20 percent of the Māori population speak it. That’s three percent of the whole country.

Waititi said the only way to restore the language was to make it visible in as many places as possible.

‘Pebble being dropped in the water’
“This is the pebble being dropped in the water, the initial pebble hitting the water. And what it’ll do, from now for many years to come, is those ripples will continue to get bigger and bigger.”

The petition now goes to a select committee, which will decide what to do next. Whether that was a bill or even a public referendum, it had already succeeded, Waititi said.

“It’s starting the dialogue, it’s building awareness. It has started a wananga across the country.”

National leader Christopher Luxon said changing the name was a constitutional issue.

“I think those are decisions for the New Zealand people, if there’s widespread support it should go to referendum and it should be a decision that they get to make. It’s not something the government makes,” he said.

But just last week Luxon posted a tribute in te reo Māori to kaumatua Joe Hawke, resulting in a tirade of anti-Māori remarks from National supporters.

Waititi brushed off any backlash the petition, and by extension he, received.

“If they’re getting their undies in a twist, that’s their undies, not my undies,” he said.

Time for a discussion
Government ministers said it was time for a discussion over changing the name, but were not actually committing to one.

“These things evolve over time, but it’s up to every New Zealander to be part of the debate,” Andrew Little said.

“I’m mindful that representatives from Ngāi Tahu have pointed out that Aotearoa tends to focus on the North Island, but that’s a debate that can rightly happen,” David Clark said.

Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall admitted she had not given it any thought.

“But I’m very comfortable having the country referred to as Aotearoa-New Zealand,” she said.

Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson said it was not something the Labour caucus had discussed, while Michael Wood called for open-mindedness.

“I think any question like that needs to be worked through really carefully. It’s the name of our country, the identity of our country,” he said.

Labour’s Māori caucus divided
Labour’s Māori caucus was somewhat divided

“I think we should have a good conversation about it. I’ve personally got no problems with us using Aotearoa but it’s a question for the whole country,” Kelvin Davis said.

Minister of Māori Development Willie Jackson supported the use of Aotearoa, but said he had recently been travelling around the country, speaking to Māori communities, and changing the country’s name never came up.

“We have other kaupapa more important right now,” he said.

Peeni Henare believed the country was ready.

“I’m encouraging one and all to have a very mature debate over what I think is a pretty cool kaupapa,” he said.

Artist Hohepa Thompson, also known as Hori, backed the petition.

Hori’s Pledge response
Hori’s Pledge is a response to billboards popping up around the country saying “New Zealand, not Aotearoa”, funded by lobby group Hobson’s Pledge.

Thompson had been driving across Te Ika a Maui, with his own billboard in tow, to call for change.

He believed a hyphenated ‘Aotearoa-New Zealand’ would not go far enough.

“Māori have taken the backseat for many, many times. So when it comes to Aotearoa-New Zealand, let’s have this. Aotearoa, boom.”

The most positive conversations on his trip came from people who did not even know Pākehā history, he said.

“The only renaming that happened here was from that side. So we’re not trying to create ‘change’, were just re-instating what was already here.”

He pointed out a similar subject that took place recently.

Three years ago, some said a national holiday for Matariki would never happen. Later this month, it will be officially celebrated for the first time.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

RNZ News

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has used her Waitangi Day speech to call for New Zealand’s people to come together and overcome the challenges facing the country today and into the future.

A pre-recorded speech from Ardern has been broadcast as part of today’s Waitangi Day commemorations.

Because of the pandemic, the Waitangi Trust shifted the focus for this year’s Waitangi Day commemorations from the typical in-person ceremony at the treaty grounds north of Paihia to a virtual experience via broadcasts and online.

Ardern said it was important to take time and reflect on Waitangi Day and think about how to improve outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders.

She said across Aotearoa there were stories of arrival, settlement, conflict, unity, hope and hardship and acknowledging the stories was crucial to people’s connection to each other.

“Today, we mark the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and our ancestors who signed this document, we mark their journey, and continue to make our own, one that defines our nation — a nation we can all be proud of.

“Togetherness is something we have shown throughout the last few years, I know it hasn’t been easy. There were many clouds and at times they seemed so dark that the sun could not shine through, but together we have, and we continue to overcome.”

Proud of NZ history teaching
Ardern said she was proud that this year schools would have the resources to teach New Zealand history and the country would celebrate the first Matariki public holiday.

Ardern said she would return to Waitangi in person, but for now she had to address people from Parliament in Wellington.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro travelled to Waitangi to pre-record speeches last month.

It was on the flight from Kerikeri to Auckland that they became close contacts of a positive covid-19 case, but subsequently they both tested negative for the virus.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The co-leader of New Zealand’s minority Māori Party has launched a blistering attack on white privilege and the opposition National Party which it accuses of “igniting racism” in the framing of a debate about radical political change.

In a provocative introduction to her weekly column in The New Zealand Herald today, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer asks: “Hey coloniser, so let me get this right, you want to lead a debate about indigenous rights that you helped to destroy?”

She writes in her media message to Pākehā colonisers: “You dishonour Te Tiriti [1840 Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding political partnership document] and promote continuing to do so.

“You stole our land and our language. You denounce our history, preferring to educate on anything but us. And you have done nothing to reverse this, instead preferring to ignore the problems.

“We are in an inherently white system that you designed, yet you feel oppressed that Māori want to stop the pain of inequities. Your systemic racism continues to perpetuate intergenerational trauma, which you refuse to accept.”

While acknowledging that National Party leader Judith Collins claimed that New Zealanders “find racism abhorrent”, she added that “in my opinion she is igniting racism through a carefully deployed campaign — apparently with the help of former leader Don Brash”.

Ngarewa-Packer says New Zealanders are entitled to a conversation about radical change, but they are not “counteracting with alternative solutions”, preferring to focus on what she saw as the “misery of struggling Māori whānau”.

‘White hypocrisy’
Criticising what she describes as “white hypocrisy”, Ngarewa-Packer called instead for a “debate about the coloniser’s entitlements”.

“And rather than start on a timeline plucked out to help lift right-wing leaders’ dying polls, let’s start at the beginning: 181 years ago, and discuss the rights of tangata whenua and the radical change needed in Aotearoa to see those rights fulfilled,” she said.

“And yes, I hear you. Why should you pay for your ancestors’ mistakes? But why should we, either?

“No one can give our language, lives, and land (actually this is possible) back. There is no true price for our tāonga. But we must at least stop the lying and stop making a mockery of tangata whenua with this pathetic dog-whistling.”

Ngarewa-Packer says a debate was needed on how New Zealand economy had been built off the “displacement of tangata whenua”.

“How tangata whenua are the largest benefactors to this nation, having accepted settlements worth 1 per cent loss of whenua stolen, in a process determined by the Crown!”

Disparity in the economy
Among examples Ngarewa-Packer gave of the disparity between the Pākehā and Māori share of the economy, were the NZ$1.9m funding for Te Matatini, the “largest kapa haka event on the planet, versus $16.9m for the NZ Symphony Orchestra”.

She also cited the $250m spent on the America’s Cup this year.

Ngarewa-Packer has also called for less hypocrisy about “crackdowns needed to stop crime”

“Let’s turn our gaze to white-collar crime, which has seen an estimated $2 billion to $4 billion loss to Aotearoa, through tax avoidance and evasion.”

She added that Māori sought to “drive our own tino rangatiratanga [self-determination]”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It is very telling that the biggest conflict around Waitangi Day this year was over whether National Party leader Simon Bridges should have given an overtly political speech on the Treaty Grounds on Tuesday. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this, it illustrated how little conflict there was, but also just how depoliticised the event has become.

Waitangi Day 2020 ended up being the most harmonious for many years, if not decades. This is largely because the politics have been deliberately exorcised, and Māori critics have largely been disarmed. This is a point I’m reported as making yesterday by Jamie Ensor and Heather McCarron in their news article, Waitangi Day 2020 least political in years, Māori feel listened to – commentator.

I’m quoted as saying: “I think a lot of Māori leaders have been almost disarmed by this Government because they are being listened to… That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Government is going to be able to solve those issues or sufficiently get Māoridom back onside on those issues, but at this moment they do seem to have convinced Māori leadership to give them another chance at least.”

The newfound harmony – or, at least, the neutralising of conflict – is very much in the interests of the Government. And the Prime Minister and her colleagues have largely succeeded in their attempts to disarm and assuage the discontented.

The new mood of Waitangi Day is nicely discussed in yesterday’s Southland Times editorial, praising the evolution towards a more low-key mood, which the newspaper says better reflects the national character – see: Waitangi as it should be.

Here’s the editorial’s main point: “The nation has let it be known, and clearly, that the Waitangi commemorations aren’t to be seen as open slather for naked political point scoring, at least not vainglorious protests that assume extravagant or distasteful conduct is somehow sanctified, let alone excused, by the day of commemoration. The message is clear; you can make a point but not be a jerk about it. Nationwide, Waitangi was commemorated and speakers sought to evoke messages of unity and paths for progress.”

The newspaper also approves of the Government’s symbolism in the way it deals with Waitangi, especially the ministerial breakfast cook-up for the masses on the Treaty Grounds, “which is fine, if not exactly the sort of loaves-and-fishes miracle one or two commentators inflated it to be. Foodsafe checks may have been in order, given her Government’s tendency to roll our undercooked delivery of policies. The PM also took a turn paddling a waka, which again is an agreeable metaphor as far as political optics are concerned, and her toddler Neve was seen helping pack away boxes for recycling. Again, some eyes may roll at this as a photo-opportunity, but that’s a bit sour. Most would surely recognise it as garden-variety parenting of a sort that could be seen up and down the country.”

Probably the best commentary in regard to the new mood at Waitangi this year, comes in Simon Wilson’s reflective piece, The passions of Waitangi (paywalled), in which he tries to explain that “something has changed at Waitangi”.

So, what’s different? Wilson explains: “The pleasure on people’s faces – all kinds of people – is palpable. It’s not that race relations, poverty and inequality have been consigned to history. Nor that everything is now sweetness and light. Passions still run high, some higher than ever. But a space for reflection has been created and, in that space, it’s become clear the loudest people are not always the most passionate people, and anger isn’t the only passion. The sense of respect is strong, the sense of discourse too. Nothing much gets thrown. If you could get everyone to visit, or if you could bottle the spirit of Waitangi and put it in every town’s water supply, we’d be such a richer country.”

Wilson says much of this evolution is due to the change of government: “Jacinda Ardern was intent on reducing poverty, reaching across the race divide and, very clearly, restoring the Government’s commitment to the abandoned art of oratory.” And the PM, Wilson reports, has been anointed a “wahine toa” (warrior woman) by Māori at Waitangi, putting her in a category with the likes of Whina Cooper.

But is the newfound depoliticisation of Waitangi real or artificial? One political journalist thinks it was actually “one of the most intensely political Waitangi Days in years” – see Thomas Coughlan’s Tense commemorations in Waitangi set the stage for hotly contested election.

Even so, Coughlan’s column emphasises how much Māori leaders and activists were placated: “Leading up to the event, there had been much focus on issues around Oranga Tamariki, Whānau Ora, and Ihumātao, none of these issues appeared to cause massive concern at Waitangi itself. Whānau Ora was raised at a closed-door meeting with iwi leaders on Wednesday, but it appears the Government’s increase of funding for the agency quashed most criticism about the way it was being run. Ihumātao was the topic of a small hikoi, but there seemed to be satisfaction with the process being run to find a resolution to the standoff. Andrew Little won plaudits for his speech at the Tuesday powhiri, which was entirely in te reo Māori.”

In another report, Coughlan explains the Government’s depoliticisation strategy for Waitangi, and for Māori politics in general: “The Government wants to depoliticise Waitangi Day. The idea is to take the emphasis away from the day itself, creating a week of commemorative events. You can’t take the politics out of the day completely of course, but it’s true that even the protests this year are not what they have been in years and decades past. There’s no mud slinging, and absolutely no projectile dildos” – see: Jacinda Ardern to tell Māori ‘progress not perfection’ at key Waitangi address.

The success of the Government’s strategy was evident in the fact that even the Ihumātao protestors were kind about the PM, with one protestor giving her the “wahine toa” title. Clearly Ardern’s new line – that the Government’s achievements are “progress but not perfection” – is working. And this phrase goes alongside Ardern’s refrain that “There is more mahi to do”.

As to the Government’s notion Waitangi should be politics-free and that National breached that convention, Coughlan points out, “It was a pretense of course – Ardern and Peters’ remarks were made at an event where the Government was announcing the allocation of millions of dollars of Provincial Growth Fund money, a transparent push from NZ First for rural votes.  The event underlines the incumbent advantage Governments enjoy: they can be nakedly political while claiming not to be. The opposition enjoys no such privilege.”

Newsroom political editor Sam Sachdeva also reported the less political or conflictual mood at Waitangi this year: “It was a relaxed end to what was a fairly tranquil visit for the Prime Minister, if only in terms of politics rather than scheduling. The drama and controversy that accompanied Waitangi Days past seems to have receded, with only a handful of protesters voicing their concerns and without any need for security to intervene” – see: Patience, positivity on display for Ardern’s Waitangi visit.

Although he points to some of the changes in the way the events are organised at Waitangi that have contributed to this, the Government’s orientation to Māori has played the central role: “Ardern and company have succeeded in convincing Māori that while they may not have all the answers to the problems they face, they are willing to have a real discussion about how to find them.”

Sachdeva points out that there remain “many justified criticisms of this government, including a number of significant issues for Māori that may be difficult to resolve”, but, by and large, iwi leaders are praising rather than complaining about the Government’s role. For example, after the Iwi Chairs Forum meeting with the PM, “Te Rarawa iwi leader Haami Piripi told RNZ the hui was ‘was one of the best meetings that we have had yet between ourselves and the Government’.”

A key role in winning Māori leaders over to the Government’s line that they are making good progress for Māori was played by the Minister of Treaty Settlements, Andrew Little, who gave an eight minute speech in te reo Māori without notes.

The strategic smarts of this is explained by Pattrick Smellie: “it was impressive – but it was also pure politics. The idea that at least one Labour minister should speak at length in te reo was born eight or nine months ago, and designed to do two things: shore up Labour as the natural party of choice for Māori voters and, as one highly placed observer put it: ‘to make Simon Bridges look dumb'” – see: Election year phony war in full swing at Waitangi (paywalled).

Most observers were duly impressed. Simon Wilson wrote: “Andrew Little, now known to some as Anaru Iti, took a decisive step to show willing on that, speaking for the Government on Tuesday entirely in te reo. He walked over the bridge to Te Ao Māori, as the PM put it, and they embraced him for it” – see: Andrew Little steals the show at Waitangi (paywalled).

Wilson reports that in response, “The tangata whenua then sang back to him. It was a rare and extraordinary honour.” In contrast, he says Bridges gave a highly political speech and “made a fool of himself”. In Wilson’s view, Bridges was trying to speak to those beyond Waitangi: “His message wasn’t for the people in front of him, it was for the voters at home. And he’d decided the only way he’d even get to deliver it was if he ruffled some feather cloaks in the process.”

In his account, Smellie agrees with this, but suggests that it was a bit rich for the Government politicians to accuse Bridges of politicising what was already a highly-political event. In fact, Smellie goes further and suggests that the whole Waitangi set-up has become something of an artificial Davos-like elite and media-managed event. He says, “the formalities are a highly controlled environment where the audience is largely the media, a lot of cops, along with grandees of Northland and national politics.”

Furthermore, without the grassroots politics, it all feels a bit staged: “There’s a slight ‘Potemkin village,’ feel to the whole thing now that proceedings have moved away from the comparative anarchy of the ‘lower marae’, where the politics tended to overheat and give TV cameras a reliably divisive spectacle on a day of intended national unity. (A Potemkin village is a fake village created for propaganda purposes.)”

And Smellie’s evaluation of the PM’s showing on Tuesday isn’t as positive as the rest of the media: “Perhaps the limpest performance of the day was from the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who promised to continue being held to account, acknowledged there is ‘always more mahi’ to do and did what she will do all year: rattle off a long list of the government’s announcements to date. Compared to two years ago, when she first spoke at Waitangi, it was a flat performance, phoned in for a friendly crowd.”

Finally, despite all the attempts to depoliticise Waitangi Day this year, politics is still vitally central to the whole week, and Leonie Hayden has captured this in two excellent columns, ‘Hold us to account’: has Jacinda Ardern honoured her 2018 Waitangi pledges?, and Waitangi Day without the politicians is the best Waitangi Day of all.

The 2018 census has had such a low compliance rate, that it really acted as a large convenience sample (therefore a biased sample) of the New Zealand population. (See my Census Survey from March 2018.) Despite the assurances we are getting, many researchers will have little confidence in its population tallies for towns, districts, and cities. Truths about population redistribution within New Zealand remain elusive.

Unbiassed and factual sources of 2014-2017 population trends are the last two general elections, contested under the same electoral boundaries. My chart for October 2017 – Migration within New Zealand: Evidence from the Election – shows that, based on election votes cast, population growth was slower in Auckland (except Auckland’s outer fringe) than in any other region in the country.

The two main points of this month’s chart are the Māori population decline in Auckland, and the big increase in the south (probably mainly in Wellington, which is in Te Tai Tonga). The Wellington influx probably reflects growth of the bureaucracy, rebuilding after a substantial decrease in its numbers after the 2008 election. Māori have probably been disproportionately affected through this bureaucratic population cycle, given the greater emphasis this decade on biculturalism within the government sector.

While this month’s chart looks only at the Māori electorates, and notwithstanding the Wellington issue, this population dynamic serves as a proxy for all second‑to‑fortieth generation New Zealanders. The big story that the demographers seem to have missed is the recent diaspora of both Māori and Pakeha from Auckland. While the 2018 census was well-timed to capture this, the census‑repair‑process may not.

I was prompted to revisit this issue of demographers’ assumptions after having read an interview with Paul Spoonley – Changing Demographics – in the Winter 2019 AA Directions magazine. Spoonley says “this country is entering [my italics] an era of change”. He adds: “The continual growth of Auckland is predicted. It’s expected that within the next two decades, 40% of all New Zealanders will live in the City of Sails”. And “many regions will experience population stagnation”.

The election data clearly show that the population of central and suburban Auckland has decreased relative to the rest of the country. Māori electorate demographics suggest that only about 15 percent of Māori live in Auckland. Further, the combined population of Auckland’s former cities and borough – Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau, Papakura – was most likely (in 2018) less than 30 percent of the national total.

As well as an inexorable Aucklandification, Spoonley describes an imminent process of brownification (Pasifika and Asian, rather than Māori). In fact, that process dates back at least to the 1990s. To back up his view that this change is recent, Spoonley says: “Between 2006 and 2013 our population grew by 35,000 from migration, which is considered modest. Between 2013 and 2018, growth was by 270,000”.

Based on data collected from Statistics New Zealand this week, the 2006‑13 increase was 95,742 and the 2013‑18 increase was 328,133. (These are net passenger statistics, the only truly accurate measure of net population inflow.) But if we adjust the years cited and take the nine years 2001‑09, we get a net inflow of 257,694, giving a somewhat different picture of immigration in that 2000s’ decade. From 2010‑18 – the next nine years – we get a net inflow of 290,054.

2000 itself was a grumpy year in New Zealand, when the $NZ fell below $US0.40, and immigration was substantially negative. Looking at the whole period after 2000, New Zealand experienced an annual average immigration‑sourced population increase of 0.8 percent per year. This was equally true in each decade of this century. (Of course, there was variation in individual years, with the biggest source of variability being the movements of New Zealand citizens; especially variation in the trans‑Tasman flows of New Zealanders.)

Auckland’s Māori population diaspora may or may not show in the coming census data, due to be published in September 2019. And the Aucklander exodus may or may not continue. The main cause of the exodus has most likely been people taking advantage of high prices to sell their houses and make windfall gains. While Auckland real estate prices remain very high, they have been falling relative to the rest of the country since 2017. With much new medium‑high‑density housing coming on stream near to transport nodes, I expect Auckland’s growth will resume, in pace with the rest of the country.

The extraordinary Māori land protest at Ihumātao in Auckland is symbolic of our time. It is unlikely to have occurred, say, five years ago. It perfectly reflects heightened concerns and increased radicalism over racism, economic inequality, and the history of colonialism in New Zealand. This meant that when the police moved in last week to evict a long-running protest about the confiscation of Māori land, it suddenly ignited those values that have been brewing in many about injustice and a need to take a stand.

Today’s Otago Daily Times editorial argues the protest has been snowballing due to rising radicalism in society: “The emotional pull is compelling. Those with leftish and anti-establishment sentiments join in enthusiastically. The evils of colonialism, capitalism and racism are laid bare” – see: The Ihumatao cause celebre.

Like much of the radicalism – leftwing, rightwing, or otherwise – we’re seeing around the world, the editorial points out that the movement at Ihumātao doesn’t fit into a traditional box. This is because it involves complex issues, difficult history, unusual alliances, and some big potential ramifications for race relations in this country.

There have been a number of useful attempts to explain the complexities of the Ihumātao clash. The best of these were actually published some time ago – see Leonie Hayden’s National Geographic feature article from 2017: When Worlds Collide and Geoff Chapple’s article for the Listener from 2016: Ihumātao and the Ōtuataua Stonefields: A very special area.

Today on RNZ, Alex Ashton and Sharon Brett-Kelly detail some of the background issues and explain how local iwi and hapu are split on the issue of Fletcher Building constructing houses on the land – see: Ihumātao explained.

This piece lays out a “tale of skulduggery” in which Māori land was unjustly confiscated in 1863, leading to the Ihumātao farmland remaining in private hands ever since – first with the Wallace family, and today with Fletchers. And it’s now part of the Auckland City Council’s recognised Special Housing Area, meaning that a development is set to proceed.

As Ashton and Brett-Kelly’s piece explains, Fletchers has worked with local Māori (mana whenua) who have been regarded as having a mandate to negotiate. The local iwi, Te Kawerau a Maki, “accepted the inevitability of the Fletchers development and struck a deal with the corporation that negotiator Te Warena Taua describes as ‘better than anything we have ever achieved from Housing New Zealand or the Crown’. Eight hectares, or 25 percent of the land, will be handed back as a buffer against Otuataua, views of the maunga protected which has meant scaling back the height of some homes, and some of the homes placed into a shared equity scheme with the iwi. It’s unusually generous. Fletchers isn’t putting up a spokesperson during this protest but would it would be unfair to paint the corporation as the villain.”

However, not everyone agrees that the iwi, and its leadership, are the only mana whenua who should be discussing or deciding what happens to the land. Other claimants to the role have now become involved in asserting their rights, including some from within Te Kawerau a Maki. You can also listen to today’s 22-minute RNZ podcast: Ihumātao explained podcast.

To read the perspective of the local iwi who favour the Fletchers development, see Pita Turei’s opinion piece: Leave Ihumātao land decisions to iwi. In this he outlines the history of the land, and how local iwi leaders have worked to get Fletchers to give concessions in the development.

Turei, who’s been involved in activism for decades including the Land March and occupation of Bastion Point, says he understands the desire to protest, but argues that the protestors have got it wrong, and are unnecessarily splitting the unity of Māori. He also challenges the protestors to consider what they are really achieving, which he argues would be worse for local Māori.

The protestors believe that the deal struck between the Māori leaders and Fletchers isn’t sufficient, and the return of the land is necessary. A group called Save Our Unique Landscape (SOUL) has been at the forefront of the whole campaign – see Matthew Rosenberg’s Ihumātao eviction protest: An occupation 150 years in the making.

In this he profiles SOUL’s main spokesperson, Pania Newton, who says: “We will remain here until the bulldozers come. I’ve already planned to sacrifice my life for this campaign… I’m willing to die for it. It’s so important to my identity and to the history of our nation and my nieces and nephews.”

A lot of media coverage has emphasised the generational clash involved, as the protests have been centred on younger people. And as an illustration of this divide, although Pania Newton is leading the protests, it’s her uncle, Te Warena Taua, who is the chairperson of the Makaurau Marae Trust and executive chairperson of Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, and has fronted much of the defence of the arrangement with Fletchers – see Kendall Hutt’s Ihumātao eviction: Generations of Māori divided in dispute.

Another way to look at the divide is to view the traditional iwi leadership as having been incorporated into the business establishment, which is what socialist intellectual Alex Birchall argues in his blog post, Ihumātao: The class conflict in Māori politics opens up. He says that the dispute is not simply between protesting Māori versus Fletchers and the police, but also between the local Māori Establishment versus disaffected Māori.

Similarly, John Moore has argued that this new protest represents a growing disillusionment with the Treaty process: “What Ihumātao points to in a deeper political sense is that deep dissatisfaction with how the whole treaty process has played out. With billions of dollars of land, resources and money transferred to certain Māori iwi, we have seen the enrichment and empowerment of certain Māori leaders, while we also have the reality of general poverty within te ao Māori. Most Māori don’t seem to of benefited particularly from the treaty process. So, in a sense this occupation is a cry and rallying point for those Māori who feel they haven’t gained form the enrichment and empowerment of official iwi leaders” – see: Ihumātao – a rallying cry for disaffected Māori.

Mounting pressure on politicians to fix the problem

The protestors at Ihumātao have called on the Government to intervene, and they’ve been supported by coalition partner the Green Party, who have formally written to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to request action. So far, the Government’s response has been to try as hard as possible to keep out of the issue.

Ardern has indicated her preference for the status quo: “Ultimately we are falling on the side of the local iwi and their position… They are not the ones leading the protest here and so if we come in over the top, it really would be undermining the local iwi in this case.”

On Friday, however, the Prime Minister gave an assurance that construction on the Ihumātao development wouldn’t proceed in the meantime while an attempt was made at finding a resolution.

While this has been appreciated by many of the protesters, it doesn’t get the Government off the hook. Many protestors won’t be satisfied until the Government arranges to buy the land off Fletchers to be made into a public reserve, which may or may not include housing as well.

Critics have been scathing about the Government’s attempts to sit on the fence on the issue. Morgan Godfery has argued that: Ihumātao is Jacinda Ardern’s foreshore and seabed moment. And she’s failing.

Writing prior to the PM’s Friday intervention, Godfery questioned the authenticity of Ardern’s commitment to biculturalism: “It’s an intolerable position, especially from a Prime Minister who’ll wrap herself in Māori iconography for the international press. Do you take your kahu huruhuru off when land at Auckland Airport? When the Governor-General said in the Speech from the Throne that your government will work to ‘honour the original treaty promise’ did you have your fingers crossed?”

The PM is now overseas, and is to some extent able to avoid the ongoing debate. But it’s a sign of just how fraught the issue is for her that she is making some extraordinary attempts to prevent being questioned over it. Anna Bracewell-Worrall reported last night: “Jacinda Ardern has personally tried to prevent media from asking about the Ihumātao dispute while on a charm offensive in the Pacific. Her staff threatened journalists with restricted access to the PM if they did, forcing her Beehive team to intervene from Wellington. After crisis calls from the Capital, media were allowed a second shot” – see: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern tried to prevent media asking about Ihumātao.

It looks as if the Government is still very disinclined to step into the issue in a more radical way, such as buying the land off Fletchers. Today on the AM Show, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters spoke out strongly against the protestors and in favour of the iwi who had negotiated with Fletchers, saying “Let’s not have some of the statements by, in particular, people who don’t belong there, who have not kept the land warm all these centuries, who are not in authority or do not have the mana to speak on behalf of them, let’s not have this sort of media circus” – see: Ihumātao protest: Winston Peters critical of ‘imposters’ protesting.

According to the above article, Peters “said in the ‘Māori world’, if people turn up to protest on land they haven’t personally safeguarded or are connected to, they are regarded as strangers and shouldn’t be making statements on the land.”

This follows on from Labour MP Peeni Henare going on TV on Saturday saying “that every Treaty settlement ever completed could be undermined if the Government purchased the Ihumātao land for use as a public heritage space.”

For more arguments on why a special deal on Ihumātao would be a problem for other iwi, see Ben Thomas’ Here’s why the Government can’t return Ihumātao to Iwi.

Not everyone agrees with this, however. Today, former indigenous studies academic at the University of Auckland, John McCaffery has argued that there is a misunderstanding in terms of Treaty settlements at Ihumātao: “the Government is claiming that issues at Ihumātao cannot be further discussed, litigated or reopened because of the precedent it would create. This is not historically supported by evidence held by the Crown. The fact is, there has not been any such Waitangi settlement of the Wai 8 1986 Manukau area claim, so attempts now to find a just solution are not constrained by a previous full and final Treaty settlement over this land” – see: Finding a solution to the tragedy of Ihumātao (paywalled).

McCaffery also challenges the mana whenua status that the Government says the iwi has: “According to the written decisions, Te Kawerau a Maki was never mandated by the Crown to have prime tangata whenua or Government’s mandated mana whenua status at Ihumātao, and Ihumātao is not within their agreed tribal mandated boundaries in their settlement either.”

There’s obviously also the potential for this to blow up as a larger political issue. And Chris Trotter writes about this today – see: Ihumātao watched by unfriendly eyes. He looks at whether the land occupation could spark a conservative backlash, and then a deeper clash that impacts significantly on the Treaty settlements process, Labour’s hold on the Māori seats, and ultimately creating something of an “iwi/Kiwi”-style culture war that raises the stark question of whether the nation proceeds towards becoming “The Bi-Cultural Republic of Aotearoa”.

Finally, what does the controversy say about how this country does its urban planning? Business journalist Rob Stock investigated by going along to a Fletchers annual general meeting, and then visiting the site of the housing development. He was less than impressed with the company. He concludes that not only is Ihumātao a “remarkable place, and is something quite unique in a city that has a tendency to bulldoze its history”, but also that “The truth is Fletcher is building at Ihumātao not because it is a good idea, but because it is convenient” – see: The real reason Fletchers is building at Ihumātao .

OBITUARY: By Matthew Theunissen of RNZ News

Acclaimed actor and activist Anzac Wallace is being remembered by people in the film and political worlds for his rare talent and powerful personality.

The actor has died at the age of 76. His tangi will be at Ngā Whare Waatea Marae in Māngere.

Wallace, usually called “Zac”, was best known for his role in the 1983 film Utu (Revenge), which brought him critical acclaim and helped put New Zealand – and Māori – on the map.

READ MORE: Māori Television tribute to Anzac Wallace

Anzac Wallace as the guerilla leader Te Wheke in the 1983 film Utu … brought him critical acclaim and helped put New Zealand – and Māori – on the global map. Image: Ara Video/RNZ

The thrilling tale of conflict between Māori and British colonists in 1870s New Zealand is led by Wallace’s character Te Wheke, who sets out to take vengeance on the British forces who have killed his family and destroyed his village.

Wallace had done little acting before taking on the role. He was working as a trade union organiser during the 1978 Māngere Bridge construction project dispute when he met Utu director Geoff Murphy.

That’s when Labour MP Willie Jackson also got to know him.

“Zac Wallace was a leader. There’s no doubt about it,” Jackson said.

‘Huge personality’
“In every area that he moved into, you know, he was born a leader and he just had this big, huge personality and he was a natural orator and he was a fighter for justice.”

Wallace ran into trouble when he was a young man and spent more than a decade in borstal and prison – the most serious a six-year sentence for armed robbery – but turned his life around after his release.

“He went from being in the D in Paremoremo [prison] to become a union leader and a really acclaimed actor and community leader,” Jackson said.

“So it’s such a successful life. He had so many skills and of course he had his flaws, too … but always his leadership stood out and he had a great heart for the people.”

When Utu was released, Jackson said it was an incredible source of pride for Māori, as well as for the rest of the country.

“We had so few Māori who had made it, in terms of international acclaim. You know, the Temuera Morrisons, the Cliff Curtises, the Taika Waititis, Kimberley, they came along quite a bit later. And so Zac was one of the first – if not the first – to really get some international acclaim.”

Actor-turned-lawyer Kelly Johnson, best known for playing car thief Gerry Austin in Goodbye Pork Pye, got to know Wallace on the set of Utu.

“We were in the bush, it was cold and with snow sometimes. So you end up sitting around, trying to keep warm and talking. And that’s how I got to know him.

‘Talk quite openly’
“It was a really fascinating, interesting time because we were discussing things that we don’t normally talk about. And we could confront them and talk about quite openly, about what happened in the past.

“And at the same time, there was all this stuff going on with the Red Squad and you know, the Springbok Tour. There was a sort of a weird parallel going on in real life.”

Anzac Wallace … “weird parallel going on in real life.”. Image: Māori TV

Anzac Wallace spoke to RNZ after Geoff Murphy’s death in December last year.

“At that time I didn’t trust maybe people and this bearded man rocked up on my doorstep with a cigarette – a durrie – hanging out of his mouth and asking me if I wanted to play in a movie.

“I always took those sorts of invitations like a joke. Who wants to know a thief? Who wants to know a burglar? Who wants to know an ex-prisoner?

“Geoff did. He was genuine.”

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

by Dr Bryce Edwards

2019’s Waitangi commemorations will be mostly remembered for two debates – whether the Prime Minister should be able to recite the detail of the Treaty of Waitangi, and whether the teaching of the Treaty and colonial history in New Zealand should be compulsory.

PM’s unawareness of the Treaty Articles

Jacinda Ardern’s awkward answers about the Treaty of Waitangi were uncomfortable watching, not just for supporters of the Government and a more Treaty-driven politics, but also for anyone wary of being put on the spot about contentious issues. You can watch the encounter here, where TVNZ’s Maiki Sherman asks the PM what the articles of the Treaty say – see: Jacinda Ardern fumbles over what Treaty of Waitangi articles say – ‘Article One? On the spot?’

The Leader of the Opposition was also quizzed but had the great advantage of taking the test after the Prime Minister – see 1News’ Bridges has quick refresher to pass Treaty of Waitangi quiz after Ardern’s fumble yesterday.

So, was the PM’s ignorance of the Treaty something she should be criticised for? Definitely, according to Heather du Plessis-Allan. She says, “the country’s leaders have headed up to Waitangi to try to look woke around race relations. But, if you are aiming to look woke, you better be woke” – see: Jacinda Ardern should have been able to recite the Treaty.

Du Plessis-Allan expresses sympathy for Ardern but explains why we should take her failure seriously: “She is the country’s leader after all. She is the one who celebrated the launch of the Crown-Māori Relations Portfolio by saying, ‘My vision is that we as a country realise the promise of the Treaty.’ How can you deliver on the promise of the Treaty if you don’t know the promise of the Treaty? And she’s also the one using Waitangi Day as a PR opportunity.”

The unfortunate incident, in which “the PM’s lack of knowledge was exposed” also raises bigger questions for du Plessis-Allan about Ardern’s abilities: “It’s also a substance problem. This is a recurring theme with the Prime Minister. There’s a lot of style, especially on the international stage, but questions remain over substance back home.”

Similarly, former Act MP Rodney Hide writes today that the episode brings into focus the contrast between Ardern’s strengths and weaknesses: “She is wonderful wowing the people at Waitangi. She is great on the world stage. She exudes compassion. She makes a great celebrity. She would be tremendous addition to the Royal Family. But she’s Prime Minister. She’s responsible for the entire apparatus of government. She also needs to show depth. Her failure to know Article One reinforces a sense of shallowness that goes hand-in-hand with celebrity status” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s failure to recite Article One ‘inexcusable’.

For Hide, not all “gotcha questions” merit being taken seriously, but anything about the Treaty says a lot about an MP, because the “Treaty is a big deal politically, legally, constitutionally, and historically. It has a big impact” on government. He says that it’s “a basic expectation of being an MP” to be able “to rattle off the three Articles”. And he adds, “Don Brash could rattle it off in his sleep. Bill English could do so in Maori.”

Newstalk ZB political editor Barry Soper also argues that the Treaty question put to the PM was fair: “The question was asked for a reason, as the leader of the nation, attending what she’s turned into a personal five day event for her, she should have known the articles of the Treaty – there are only three of them. Forget the te reo version that she parroted, the English would have done. She was there after all, to commemorate the signing of the Treaty and should have been fully across its contents” – see: Our future generations need to understand the content of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Soper does, however, add a guess at how John Key would have dealt with the question: “his face would have broken into a wide smile but he more than likely wouldn’t have even attempted to answer.”

Some Māori leaders took Ardern to task for her inadequate response. Sonny Tau of Ngāpuhi chose to say the following in his Waitangi Day speech in front of Ardern: “Only one thing I’ve got to say this morning and that is: If we’re going to lead a country, we need to learn the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi… There are some of us, leaders, who have slipped up on that, and all I ask is by this time next year that we all know the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi” – see Zane Small and Jamie Ensor’s Ngāpuhi’s Sonny Tau takes jab at Jacinda Ardern’s Treaty knowledge in Waitangi speech.

Yesterday, Hinemoa Elder raised the bar even further, saying that it’s not “sufficient” to be able to just recite the words of the Treaty, but it’s important to also have a relatively sophisticated analysis of them. She puts forward this challenge: “How many can recall these in Te Reo Māori, and English, and talk about the differences in interpretation and the inherent cultural clashes?” – see: We should all be familiar with the Treaty of Waitangi, here’s a 101.

Teaching the Treaty in schools

In her column, Elder concludes: “If we learnt them at school wouldn’t that make things easier? What a radical idea! Then from a young age we can debate the very ideas that underpin our national sense of who we are. Is that really so hard to put into practice?”

Many other commentators have made a similar connection between Ardern’s lack of knowledge and the need to have much more colonial history taught in New Zealand schools.

For example, Liam Hehir has responded to the incident by arguing “When even the ‘woke’ are ignorant about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it’s clear we need to make teaching its history compulsory in schools” – see: If Jacinda doesn’t know the Treaty, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Hehir, who has a strong understanding of colonial history from his Palmerston North schooling, says he asked around amongst friends and family and found a similar level of unawareness of Treaty details: “I did not expect this. What was also unexpected was the fact that relative wokeness seemed to have little bearing on knowledge or ignorance about what is, whether you like it or not, the foundational basis for the existence of the country. I had expected those who make a point of being sensitive to the Treaty to have a working knowledge of what was actually in it. If that sounds like a snarky point, it’s not supposed to. It genuinely surprised me.”

There’s a petition underway, asking that a law be passed to make the teaching of the Treaty and colonial New Zealand history compulsory – see Adele Redmond’s article, Petition reignites debate over teaching New Zealand’s colonial history in schools.

According to this, the New Zealand History Teachers’ Association wants to see the “coherent teaching” of colonial history, with chairperson Graeme Ball being reported as saying “New Zealand’s colonial history was taught in an ‘ad hoc’ fashion, and students were ‘lucky’ if they learned about Parihaka, the New Zealand Land Wars, or the Waitangi Tribunal.”

Bell says “New Zealand was experiencing a ‘zeitgeist moment’, with more Kiwis willing to engage with te reo and New Zealand’s colonial history”, and the Government should therefore seize the chance to introduce compulsory courses.

The response has been generally positive. The New Zealand Herald responded with an editorial pointing out that an understanding of New Zealand’s history is vital, and because the phase of Treaty settlements is nearing an end, “it ought now to be possible to find a balanced history for teaching in schools” – see: Our history is contentious, that is all the more reason to teach it.

The Dominion Post has shown even more enthusiasm, saying the government has an opportunity it must seize: “History is often considered boring because of the tyranny of distance and time. Imagine history delivered at a very local level, as an engaging, exciting introduction to a wider context; how issues and incidents in your town, on your street, played a role in the bigger story; one that culminated in a historic day 179 years ago. It just needs a little imagination and some effort” – see: Let’s go back to the future.

Politicians respond to calls for colonial history in schools

Politicians are always fearful of being on “the wrong side of history”, but initially the Government poured cold water on the idea of compulsory courses in colonial history.

Kelvin Davis, who is Labour’s Deputy leader, associate minister of education, minister of Crown Māori relations, and a former teacher, was reported as rejecting the idea, saying: “In terms of the teaching of Te Tiriti in schools, remember that schools are self-governing, self-managing. It’s inappropriate for governments to come along and dictate specifics of what’s taught in schools” – see John Gerritsen’s History teachers decry ‘shameful’ ignorance of colonial, Māori history.

The Prime Minister is also reported as deflecting questions about proposal for schools to teach colonial history. She said: “My first question would be how many aren’t? I would be surprised if it wasn’t being taught universally.”

The same article also reports that “New Zealand First MP Shane Jones said it was up to schools to decide what they taught but he expected most, if not all, would teach students about the Treaty of Waitangi.”

But it wasn’t long before the Government warmed up to the idea, especially because opposition politicians were embracing the proposal. Audrey Young reported that: “There seems to be a consensus across the political spectrum about the need for schools to actively teach the Treaty of Waitangi in the context of New Zealand history, but with caveats. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, National leader Simon Bridges and Hobson’s Pledge spokesman Don Brash all supported education on the Treaty of Waitangi for New Zealand children” – see: Broad political agreement to teach NZ history and Treaty of Waitangi in schools, with caveats.

On Māori TV, some further details of what politicians thought were covered in Talisa Kupenga’s item, MPs at Waitangi talk colonial history in schools. For instance, Kelvin Davis says, “It’s right to give the Māori version and other versions [of colonial history] but I am of the opinion that the Māori version is the correct version.” And Youth Minister Peeni Henare asserts: “I want a unified standard. It is ad-hoc when it comes to how and what is taught in each area but we are all wanting the same thing; to teach children our history.”

Difficult questions about teaching political history

There is no doubt that any moves to establish greater teaching of New Zealand history would raise big questions about ideological and political impacts. After all, such compulsory lessons would amount to a version of “civics education” being introduced by proxy.

This is the concern of economics blogger Michael Reddell who says he is highly supportive of the principle of teaching New Zealand colonial history in schools but also highly sceptical about what it might mean in practice – see: Yes, but…. In this, Reddell argues that the prospect of political indoctrination is always a factor when government seek to introduce civics lessons.

Reddell explains that despite his enthusiasm for the study of New Zealand history, “what leaves me rather more ambivalent (‘yes, but….’)  is the sort of people who would be teaching our history, and/or designing any curriculum. Few of them seem to see New Zealand history as something to celebrate (I’m going to be fascinated to see how our Prime Minister treats the 250th anniversary of Captain Cook’s first visit), and there is a strong theme of shame –  the ‘black armband’ approach to history –  combined with some agenda for how these people think society should be organised now or what role (say) the Treaty of Waitangi should play.”

Similarly, talkback radio host Sean Plunket believes there’s “a lot of BS in history”, and he “says it’s the version we learn that is important” – see Scott Palmer’s ‘Propaganda’: Sean Plunket slams ‘biased’ compulsory Māori history calls . He argues for a greater diversity of subject matter in the teaching of history.

Coming from a very different perspective, columnist Tom O’Connor says that a current lack of history in schools is leading to bigotry: “It is no wonder we hear such ill-informed and ignorant commentary every time the details of a Waitangi Tribunal hearing are announced. How can anyone be expected to understand the complexities of the issue if the underlying history is not known? In a vacuum of reliable and fact-based knowledge, mis-information and bigotry grow like mushrooms in a dark place” – see: Unacceptable not to teach children ‘complete’ NZ history.

O’Connor argues that New Zealand students learn their history too late, and contrasts this with other English-speaking countries: “American school kids begin learning their history from day one as do children in English and Irish schools. Some of us were taught selected parts of English history only, which had little if any relevance to us, but nothing of our own.”

In his opinion piece, Liam Hehir warns that it would be mistake to just replace English history with New Zealand history: “What happened in the United Kingdom – particularly during the period of the English Civil War – is also important for anybody who wants to understand the nature of our institutions and how they work. Anybody who has a good grasp of events of 17th century England and 19th century New Zealand will have a working knowledge of who we are and how we got here.”

As to the question of compulsion, University of Auckland history lecturer and Waitangi Tribunal member Aroha Harris takes on such questions, saying that compulsion is only necessary because a voluntary approach has failed – see: Don’t get me started on compulsion.

Harris lists other “compulsions” that she says Maori have had to put up with: “compulsory taking of Māori land, compulsory denial of te reo, compulsory restrictions on whāngai practices, on hapū fisheries, on customary resource management systems. Really. Just don’t get me started.”

And on the issue of what in the current school curriculum might be replaced by compulsory colonial lessons, Harris says: “(a) it doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game, and (b), shall we reflect a little on what we’ve already lost by remaining ignorant of our past and acting like it doesn’t matter?”

Finally, for his take on what is wrong with the supposed “conservative” version of New Zealand colonial history, see David Slack’s liberal parody: A brief impartial history of New Zealand.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

There has been a striking mood of positivity and optimism in the commentary about Waitangi Day, and race relations in general, this year. It’s as if we have turned a corner as a nation. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern epitomised this in her prayer yesterday in which she said God “made us of one blood, now make us of one people”. Of course, the question is whether the feel-good mood at Waitangi translates into meaningful change for Māori, who remain severely disadvantaged compared to Pākehā in almost every indicator of well-being.

The new mood in race relations, so clearly enunciated by politicians and commentators over the last few days, was thrown into stark relief by broadcaster Mike Hosking’s column today which seemed entirely out-of-sync with other readings of race relations at the moment – see: Waitangi isn’t our national day, it’s our grievance day.

Hosking made this observation: “It’s not really our national day, it’s our grievance day. And not even a national grievance day, because the vast, vast majority of us don’t actually have a grievance. The vast, vast majority of us love our lives, love our country, feel blessed to be here, and understand just how lucky we are.”

Similarly, Lizzie Marvelly’s column at the weekend portrayed race relations around Waitangi Day as deeply negative, and she seemed pessimistic about the debates and discussions – see: For many, Waitangi Day is just a day off work.

Marvelly says her negative view is based on personal experience: “being Māori, Waitangi Day is always inevitably charged for me. It looms in my mind. Early in January, I subconsciously wait for controversy to erupt. Whatever happens, inevitably Māori bear the brunt of the negative publicity. We’re often cast as bloody Mowries with our hands out. We can’t even stop the grievance machine for one day of national significance. We’re an embarrassment. A joke.”

In fact, what was most striking about the public debate and discussions this week is they were not about grievance nor about “Māori bashing”, but about celebration of race relations progress. Two newspaper editorials were particularly interesting in this regard.

The Otago Daily Times declared yesterday that something new was happening: “For much of the past few decades, Waitangi Day has served as a pulpit from which differences have been shouted. This has been healthy, necessary and, at times, effective. But there is a feeling times are changing” – see: Waitangi Day about us all.

This editorial makes a controversial point reminiscent of Don Brash: “the most effective and lasting way each of us can celebrate is to see ourselves as one people, as simply ‘us’, without a ‘them’.” But the declaration of New Zealand being “one people” is made in the context of what the newspaper sees as a history of disadvantage for Maori, albeit one that is now being taken seriously and remedied.

The editorial applauds the widespread embrace of Māori culture: “We should celebrate Maori education, health and social services for the unique and effective role they play in New Zealand. We should celebrate Maori business, cultural and sporting successes, and the shifting role of Maori culture as a reverently respected bedrock of our national identity. Maori success is New Zealand success, after all.”

The New Zealand Herald also has a very interesting editorial drawing attention to the increasing entrenchment of bi-culturalism, improved political representation of Māori, increased usage of te reo Māori, and the fact that iwi have been strengthened by Treaty settlements – see: Celebration in order on our special day.

Unlike in the past, the newspaper declares, “New Zealand is in good heart, politically stable, economically prospering and capable of doing even better. This is a day to celebrate.”

Journalist Karl du Fresne is in sync with this new outlook of celebration and positivity about race relations and Waitangi Day – see his column, Waitangi Day: We’ve come a long way, with further to go.

Du Fresne looks at the wrongs and the continued ill-effects of colonisation for Māori, complains that we “still don’t know nearly enough about our incredibly rich and colourful history”, but also says we need to acknowledge that the “British were relatively humane, enlightened colonisers” and “colonisation brought benefits too”, helping make New Zealand “one of the world’s most civilised liberal democracies.”

Māori commentators have also been offering accounts of progress and positivity about race relations in 2019. Treaty educator Te Huia Bill Hamilton says “I have noticed over time that public reactions to announcements of claims being settled are not as negative as they were. People are learning more about our history and seeing the fairness of the settlement programme” – see: NZ moving into positive territory with Tiriti.

Hamilton is now 70 years old, but says “I resisted being Māori until I was 32” because his Māori mother discouraged him. But given his observations of the nation embracing Māori culture and identity, he says that if his mother was alive today she would say “This is great. I was wrong”.

Amongst a long list of progress for race relations, Hamilton makes the following point, worth quoting at length: “There are more attempts to respect tikanga Māori (cultural practices) and for organisations to engage effectively with tangata whenua. It is becoming normal for buildings to be opened and events to begin with karakia. Many institutions have their favourite waiata which they use to support their manager or CEO who begins his or her address with a mihi. The haka is now not only the entrée to an All Blacks game, but also an expression of success by other victorious sports teams. When asked to do something ‘Kiwi’ on our overseas trips, we say ‘Kia ora’ and as a group we sing Pokarekare Ana. The Crown has created post settlement governance entities which corporate Māori can work with to receive and administer funds and assets. Treaty settlement payments have made iwi significant commercial players in their communities. Most have invested carefully and their assets have increased. Everyone wants to do business with iwi.”

Auckland mayoral candidate John Tamihere is also full of optimism about the state of race relations, and says New Zealand should rejoice at the progress made and where New Zealand is today – see: The Treaty as a roadmap .

Tamihere argues that Treaty promises are being properly realised, that Maori culture is recognised and embraced by wider society, and he points to all politicians supporting the Treaty process and the settlements achieved.

However, he says that it’s time for Maori leaders to move on from a focus on past injustices towards action on economic inequality: “Maori leadership is also going to have to invest in lifting the performance of our people across the board. If this does not happen, we simply copy the levels of inequality now evident in non-Maori communities”.

It’s not just commentators who are suggesting the arrival of a new era. The events at Waitangi yesterday provides some evidence – especially in terms of the official ceremonies – that there may be a move towards greater political harmony instead of protest and conflict.

Simon Wilson’s coverage is particularly useful. In his article, All together now: The main parties walk the walk at Waitangi, Wilson explains that the two separate marae at Waitangi served two different purposes: “A spirit of unified purpose on the upper grounds; the conflict of old on the lower.” And it was on the upper marae that history was being made: “It was the first time that all the political parties had been formally welcomed to the upper marae on the treaty grounds together.”

In a second account, When the kotuku appears: Waitangi unity on show, Wilson coveys the immense civility and unity that was on show at a place where “it’s easier to obsess about the conflict”. Wilson explains that the “theme of the pōwhiri, officially, was political unity of purpose, as symbolised by the joint walk-on of the parties.”

Much of the focus is on the leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, who Wilson observes “made an excellent speech”. He says “Bridges is Ngāti Maniapoto and his mihi was delivered with enormous pride. The first Māori leader of a major political party, his first time as leader at Waitangi.”

But Jacinda Ardern was still the star of the show. Wilson explains that a waiata sung about her in the ceremony has the following translation: “Oh beautiful woman with a full heart and a peaceful soul, the matriarch of the world”. However, in this article, Wilson challenges Ardern on her suggestion that progress can be made in a non-partisan fashion, and finds her elaboration on this goal disappointing.

For another useful account of the peacefulness of the ceremonies, see Henry Cooke and Amanda Saxton’s Waitangi Day commemorations begin under the starlight. This article quotes Māori warden Rebecca Heti: “I’ve been coming to Waitangi Day here for 20 solid years… These days it’s so much better. More peaceful. There’s no one down at the flagpole, protesting… I don’t feel that’s befitting”.

But are the Waitangi events in danger of losing the colour and substance of the past? RNZ’s Jo Moir reports Whanau Ora Minister Peeni Henare having some concerns: “I’d hate for it to become rather bland and I’d like to see a little bit more intermingling between the forum tent down there and what goes on up here” – see: ‘I’d hate for it to become rather bland’ – Labour minister on Waitangi day.

Henare also responds to questions about the Prime Minister’s grasp of the Treaty principles and her use of te reo Maori: “It’s bloody impressive to see her understanding of those concepts and her ability to interplay between English and Māori is important. She always apologises for her Pakeha tongue but she does well.”

Of course a more culturally progressive world is one thing, but for many Māori who  continue to suffer severe economic and social deprivation it will take more than a harmonious and polite Waitangi Day events to justify feeling good about race relations in this country. It could be argued that even Maori political leaders are taking the easier option through concentrating on culture instead of economics. I’ve written about this in previous years, see for example, Is the new Government already failing Māori?

Finally, there’s been some interesting cartoons published this year about the week’s events – see my blogpost, Cartoons about Waitangi 2019. And for a discussion of the history of such cartoons, together with some more historic examples, see Colin Peacock’s How cartoonists framed Waitangi Day.

By Rahul Bhattarai

Author and researcher David Hall has criticised anti-immigration rhetoric in New Zealand’s housing crisis, saying a more serious problem is “Pākehā leaders … failing to take action”.

Speaking at a panel discussion at Auckland University of Technology last night, Dr Hall, editor of the book Fair Borders: Migration Policy in the 21st Century, said harm and hurt from such rhetoric created side effects impacting on migrants.

Negativity directed towards home buyers with Chinese sounding surnames diverted attention from “long lines of people with British sounding surnames” that held and continued to hold powerful and influential positions over the housing issue.

Although there is an ethnic dimension to housing crises, he said that the most significant issue was that “Pākehā leaders supported by electorates with Pākehā majorities [were] failing to take action.”

Dr Hall, senior researcher of AUT’s Policy Observatory, was joined by three of the book’s contributors, Andrew Chen, Dr Arama Rata and Dr Evelyn Masters, to discuss how New Zealand’s borders impacted on its citizens, recent immigrants, and on people barred from the country.

Dr Hall said that over emphasis and over simplification of the role of immigration was not just a way of avoiding taking action, it was a way of avoiding responsibility for taking action and that helped nobody – “not even Pākehā and I say that as a Pākehā myself”.

-Partners-

He pointed out that one continuous theme was the failure of successful decision makers to make the tough decision that might have made a difference, such as the mayors of Auckland going back to the 1990s or the housing ministers.

“There is bit of pattern here,” he said.

‘Tricky’ issues
Dr Hall said that house prices had been rising since 1990s and only eight years ago there were more people leaving the country than were arriving, yet the house prices rose during the negative migration period.

The issue was “very tricky” with some of the genuine social strains such as housing affordability and policy and its relationship to migration.

The debate treated “immigration as an economic medicine that might taste a little bad and people just need to put up with which also doesn’t do anything to address peoples’ genuine worries”.

This was not his story to tell as no one ever challenged him based on the colour of his skin.
“As a Pākehā this isn’t really my story to tell because no one ever challenges me on whether I belong here, no one ever suggests to me that I shouldn’t be speaking English in public and no one tells me to leave by virtue of my appearance but this happens all the time to people,” he said.

Dr Arama Rata, a research officer at the University of Waikato, said that in New Zealand there was a border in place which was established by the invaders.

Māori border ignored
But the “Māori border has been ignored, a new imposition of state authority is being imposed, borders have been closed around the nation state to allow certain desirable white migrants in and to exclude others, and now we have a very secure racist structure in place”.

She said borders needed to be in place but, “it should be controlled more by our values rather than just purely economic incentives and the way I think we need to stop framing immigration as a problem”.

Dr Evelyn Masters, with Pākehā lineage and Cook Islands heritage that she is really proud of, said she struggled in explaining her New Zealand identity because people judged her based on her appearance.

Dr Masters, research manager of NZ Institute for Pacific Research, said people struggled to understand that she had multiple lineage in her blood line and wanted to be known as a New Zealander.

She did not have to be just one race because she looked brown, she said.

“I just want to say that I am a New Zealander, because my experience is I am multiple – I have brown people and white people in my family, why do I have to be just one as you see me.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz