As thousands take to the streets this week to “honour” the country’s 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, the largest daily newspaper New Zealand Herald says the massive event is “redefining activism”.

The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti has been underway since Sunday, with thousands of New Zealanders from all communities and walks of life traversing the more than 2000 km length of the country from Cape Reinga to Bluff and converging on the capital Wellington.

The marches are challenging the coalition government Act Party’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill, introduced last week by co-leader David Seymour.

The Bill had its first reading in Parliament today as a young first time opposition Te Pāti Māori MP, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, was suspended for leading a haka and ripping up a copy of the Bill disrupting the vote, and opposition Labour Party’s Māori Development spokesperson Willie Jackson was also “excused” from the chamber for calling Seymour a “liar” against parliamentary rules.

After a second attempt at voting, the three coalition parties won 68-55 with all three opposition parties voting against.

In its editorial today, hours before the debate and vote, The New Zealand Herald said supporters of Toitū te Tiriti, the force behind the Hīkoi, were seeking a community “reconnection” and described their kaupapa as an “activation, not activism; empowerment, not disruption; education, not protest”.

“Many of the supporters on the Hīkoi don’t consider themselves political activists. They are mums and dads, rangatahi, professionals, Pākehā, and Tauiwi (other non-Māori ethnicities),” The Herald said.

‘Loaded, colonial language’
“Mainstream media is often accused of using ‘loaded, colonial language’ in its headlines. Supporters of Toitū te Tiriti, however, see the movement not as a political protest but as a way to reconnect with the country’s shared history and reflect on New Zealand’s obligations under Te Tiriti.

“While some will support the initiative, many Pākehā New Zealanders are responding to it with unequivocal anger; others feel discomfort about suggestions of colonial guilt or inherited privilege stemming from historical injustices.”

The Herald said that politicians like Seymour advocated for a “multicultural” New Zealand, promising equal treatment for all cultures. While this vision sounded appealing, “it glosses over the partnership outlined in Te Tiriti”.

“Seymour argues he is fighting for respect for all, but when multiculturalism is wielded as a political tool, it can obscure indigenous rights and maintain colonial dominance. For many, it’s an unsettling ideology to contemplate,” the newspaper said.

“A truly multicultural society would recognise the unique status of tangata whenua, ensuring Māori have a voice in decision-making as the indigenous people.

“However, policies framed under ‘equal rights’ often silence Māori perspectives and undermine the principles of Te Tiriti.

“Seymour’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill prioritises Crown sovereignty, diminishing the role of hapū (sub-tribes) and excluding Māori from national decision-making. Is this the ‘equality’ we seek, or is it a rebranded form of colonial control?”

Heart of the issue
The heart of the issue, said The Herald, was how “equal” was interpreted in the context of affirmative action.

“Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel argues that true equality acknowledges historical injustices and demands action to correct them. In Aotearoa, addressing the legacy of colonisation is essential,” the paper said.

“Affirmative action is not about giving an unfair advantage; it’s about levelling the playing field so everyone has equal opportunities.

“Some politicians sidestep the real work needed to honour Te Tiriti by pushing for an ‘equal’ and ‘multicultural’ society. This approach disregards Aotearoa’s unique history, where tangata whenua hold a constitutionally recognised status.

“The goal is not to create division but to fulfil a commitment made more than 180 years ago and work towards a partnership based on mutual respect. We all have a role to play in this partnership.

“The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti is more than a march; it’s a movement rooted in education, healing, and building a shared future.

“It challenges us to look beyond superficial equality and embrace a partnership where all voices are heard and the mana (authority) of tangata whenua is upheld.”

The first reading of the bill was advanced in a failed attempt to distract from the impact of the national Hikoi.

RNZ reports that more than 40 King’s Counsel lawyers say the Bill seeks to “rewrite the Treaty itself” and have called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and the coalition government to “act responsibly now and abandon” the draft law.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

On Monday morning on RNZ’s Morning Report, Revenue Minister Simon Watts admitted that it was a legitimate option for ‘landlords’ to leave their houses empty. (Refer Revenue Minister on mortgage tax deductions for landlords, RNZ 11 March 2024.) The official narrative of the elite political class is that when tenancies on rental properties end, the houses are retenanted or sold; sold either to an owner-occupier or to a landlord who lets the property to new tenants. They don’t usually admit to owning homes which are fully or substantially empty.

I might also mention that, in one of the leaders’ political debates before the 2023 election, both Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon were asked a question about whether they favoured a tax on owners of empty houses. Both leaders appeared discomforted, as if this was a naughty question that should not have been asked, and then recombobulated themselves by saying ‘no’; a response that was to be expected from Luxon, but which may have cost Hipkins a significant number of votes. (In addition to not including such an obvious policy in the Labour manifesto, Hipkins’ cold rejection of an empty-house tax revealed that Luxon is not our only tone-deaf political leader.) Clearly neither leader had been briefed on the issue, despite such taxes being adopted overseas and despite the policy idea circulating widely in the New Zealand non-mainstream media.

An additional feature of the Simon Watts interview was the Minister’s defensiveness towards Corin Dann’s use of the term “property speculator”. When Dann pressed Watts on the matter, Watts was unable to deny that some so-called ‘investors’ were indeed ‘speculators’, and sought to fudge the issue by saying that typical ‘landlords’ are ‘ma and pa investors’ with just one or two rentals (presumably in addition to their ‘ma and pa family home’. This seems at odds with his earlier admission that professional investors have a valid option to leave rental properties untenanted; because the popular image of ‘ma and pa’ landlords is of people housing tenants who they know and have a relationship with, not an image of ruthless speculators.

It is worth reminding ourselves about maverick economist Gareth Morgan’s 2017 comments about residential landlords: see A hard look at Gareth Morgan’s plan to save New Zealand’s renters, Madeleine Holden, The Spinoff, 9 August 2017. Quote from Morgan: ‘”Look at me, I own six houses, ” he stated on The Nation. “I don’t have tenants; they just make carpets dirty. I do it because I know you [other investors] want to get in on this as well, and so you’re going to bid the price of those houses up.”‘

Leverage: how it works to create speculator paradise

Ruthless property speculators – of which there were many from 2003 to 2008 and again from 2011 to 2017 – use the principle of financial leverage to get a return principally from capital gain. (Capital gains taxes in other countries did not stop this process.)

The context is that New Zealand’s housing crisis is principally one of market and government failure in private rental housing. And we should note that this failure is less an Auckland problem and more a problem of New Zealand’s provincial cities and towns, and Wellington. Additionally, it is a crisis of urban land prices, and – as in the later 2000s – a crisis aggravated by high interest rates. Into this mix we face a change to taxation which will aggravate rather than diminish the housing crisis.

The principle of financial leverage works like this. Mr S has a million dollars and wants to double his money in two years. He has been told by his financial adviser that residential property is appreciating in price by ten percent a year. Further a typical house costs one million dollars. Mr S buys five houses with his million dollars; that $200,000 per house of his own money. He borrows the remaining four million dollars. (He may then list his houses on Airbnb, as ‘short-term’ rentals; he may even let his properties to genuine tenants, or he may leave them empty.) In two years time he expects to sell all five houses for 1.2 million dollars; that’s six million dollars in total. After repaying his mortgages in full, he would get to keep two million dollars. That’s a doubling of his initial outlay of one million. (OK, there will be some expenses; nevertheless Mr S expects to be smiling all the way to the bank when he realises his near 100% capital gain over two years.

Mr S is an example of a leveraged landlord. And he will make even more money if he doesn’t have to pay tax on his mortgage interest ‘costs’. But not all landlords are that highly leveraged. Some are not leveraged at all; they are letting mortgage-free properties to tenants. These landlords cannot gain from the deduction of tax for mortgage interest costs. So, in the coming years, they will not charge lower rents on account of lower costs. And it is these unleveraged landlords who will set the market price for private residential rental houses. (And many of these price-setting landlords will be ‘ma and pa investors’ approaching retirement age.) The leveraged landlords, if actually renting out their properties, when setting rents will take their cue from the unleveraged landlords; therefore, they will accept the reinstated tax deductions as windfall profits.

Rents will be at whatever price the market will bear, and not discounted by individual landlords with falling tax costs.

Auckland Regional Fuel Tax

Something similar will most likely happen with the repeal of the Auckland regional fuel tax. At present with the regional fuel tax in place, petrol prices in Auckland are not much different from the rest of the country. That wider nationwide price will tend to be the main determinant of ongoing petrol prices in Auckland, meaning the petrol retailers will gain a windfall when the tax ends. Auckland petrol consumers will gain less than what Mobil and BP will keep.

More generally, we see a pattern from this government to replace proportional taxes with regressive charges; for example, favouring increased car-registration fees over fuel taxes. The cost burdens are increasingly placed on those least able to afford the costs. (This situation can also occur if fixed charges for water or electricity increase faster than usage charges.)

House Prices

The granting of a licence to speculate is likely to set-up the next round of residential property price appreciation. (My sense is that other global economic headwinds will limit the next property bandwagon to no more than three years.) The issue today is much as it was in 2005, with the downturn in the tradable economy, caused in large part by higher interest rates, pushing bank lending into the non-tradable economy, especially property.

Lending to the property sector is less sensitive to interest rates than lending to businesses which export or compete with imports. The New Zealand economy is now primed for a shift in lending towards the property sector. In addition, consumer lending will likely stay strong; this will be driven more by the budget shortfalls of financially stretched households than by interest rates; consumer lending is largely interest-insensitive.

As house prices rise, rents can be expected to rise as landlords – unleveraged and leveraged – seek to maintain their percentage yields on capital. Let’s say that the expectation is that a $500,000 house in the provinces is expected to yield a rent of $500 per week; landlords’ expectations would be that if the $500,000 house becomes a $600,000 house then it should earn a rent of $600 per week. (In reality, in times of property price booms but little employment growth, there is quite a lag in rent increases; renters are simply unable to pay such proportional rent increases.)

What is likely to happen in the next few years – when the speculator community has its mojo back following the removal of tax on mortgage interest – is rents increasing faster than they otherwise would.

‘Investors’ owning just one home.

There is one class of landlords who require special attention. This is people who own just one home, which they rent out to tenants, while themselves renting their own dwelling.

I was in this situation from 2009 to 2014, having received an inheritance a few months after moving into a rental house which particularly suited my family’s circumstances. Other people will be in this situation if they move out of their family home to accept employment in another city. And other people, wanting to own some property as a hedge against poverty, will want to buy a cheapish rental in another town or an outer suburb; yet will themselves want to keep renting closer to where they work or to where their children go to school.

These people should pay zero tax on their rental income if the rent that they pay is more than the rent which they earn. While there is a case to treat mortgage interest as a legitimate ‘business’ cost for property owners, if the rent they pay offsets the rent they earn, then the question should not arise; there is no income to tax. So the critical reform here, that the National Party should be leading the way on, is to deduct rent paid from rent earned. More generally, these ‘landlords’ – who own just one property – should be treated more as owner-occupiers than as investor businesses.

Fiscal Austerity? Despite tax repeals.

We are being promised public austerity alongside the tax repeals which foster increased private affluence for a few. Tougher times stifle the circular flows that underpin a prosperous economy; austerity begets more austerity in a downward spiral, until someone finally rediscovers Keynesian economics.

Cabinet Minister Tama Potaka unashamedly advocated “austerity” last week, on Newshub’s AM show (1 March 2024): see ‘Not a free ATM card’: Taxpayers won’t bear cost of saving Newshub, minister says | AM. (The ‘austerity’ quote comes 8’38” into the video-recording. Lloyd Burr, the interviewer, looks genuinely surprised at this candid admission.)

In relation to Potaka’s comment we have this on Newshub on 5 March 2024: Finance Minister Nicola Willis rules out increasing GST after Labour speculation. The web-story discusses public austerity in the light of Potaka’s comments. This interview was a response to Why Labour’s new finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds thinks a tax hike could be on the cards on Newshub the day before. Nicola Willis knows better than Tama Potaka to avoid the ‘austerity’ word. But Nicola Willis is showing all the signs that she will be like her 1990s’ predecessor Ruth Richardson, who cut benefits and became Aotearoa New Zealand’s exemplar for fiscal austerity following her “mother of all budgets”.

Finally, Two questions for Christopher Luxon:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon owns four investment properties as well as three residences.

Question: Are you a good landlord, Mr Luxon?

Supplementary Question: How many of your four investment properties are currently tenanted?

*******

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.

When it comes to grappling with the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi, one of the commonest responses is that it is a matter of interpretation. It seems to be a perfectly fair reaction, except that historical interpretation generally requires adherence to rules of evidence.

It is not a licence to make any claims whatsoever about the Treaty, and then to assert their truth by appealing to the authority of personal interpretation.

Yet since the 1970s New Zealanders have been faced with the paradoxical situation of a growing body of Treaty scholarship that has led to less consensus about its meaning and purpose.

It is therefore worthwhile to investigate some of the more common misconceptions about the Treaty that have accrued over recent decades.

This will not lead to a definitive interpretation of the Treaty. But it might remove a few obstacles currently in the way of understanding it better.

The government has been warned to “be careful” with its policies affecting Māori at the National Iwi Chairs Forum (NICF) on Friday.https://t.co/8SskRWTxGo

— RNZ Te Ao Māori (@RNZTeAoMaori) February 2, 2024

1. The Treaty or Te Tiriti?
A common view persists that the English and Māori versions of the Treaty are fundamentally at odds with each other, especially over the central issue of sovereignty.

But research over the past two decades on British colonial policy prior to 1840 has revealed that Britain wanted a treaty to enable it to extend its jurisdiction to its subjects living in New Zealand.

It had no intention to govern Māori or usurp Māori sovereignty. On this critical point, the two versions are essentially in agreement.

2. The Treaty is not a contract
The principle of contra proferentem — appropriated from contract law — refers to ambiguous provisions that can be interpreted in a way that works against the drafter of the contract.

However, there are several problems in applying this principle to the Treaty. Firstly, treaties are different legal instruments from contracts. This explains why there are correspondingly few examples of this principle being used in international law for interpreting treaties.

Secondly, as there are no major material differences between the English and Māori versions of the Treaty when it comes to Māori retaining sovereignty, there is no need to apply such a principle.

And thirdly, under international law, treaties are not to be interpreted in an adversarial manner, but in good faith (the principle of pacta sunt servanda). Thus, rather than the parties fighting over the Treaty’s meaning, the requirement is for them to work with rather than against each other.

Nearly 400 people have marched down the main street of Kaitāia in a show of support for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.https://t.co/3BGtm8BMbw

— RNZ Te Ao Māori (@RNZTeAoMaori) February 2, 2024

3. Relationships evolve over time
No rangatira (chief) ceded sovereignty over their own people through the Treaty. Nor was that Britain’s intention — hence Britain’s recognition in August 1839 of hapū (kinship group) sovereignty and the guarantee in the Treaty that rangatiratanga (the powers of the chiefs) would be protected.

Britain simply wanted jurisdiction over its own subjects in the colony. This is what is known as an “originalist” interpretation — one that follows the Treaty’s meaning as it was understood in 1840.

This has several limitations: it precludes the emergence of Treaty principles; it wrongly presumes that all involved at the time of the Treaty’s signing had an identical view on its meaning; and, crucially, it ignores all subsequent historical developments.

Treaty relationships evolve over time in numerous ways. Originalist interpretations fail to take that into account.

4. Questions of motive
British motives for the Treaty were made explicit in 1839, yet in the following 185 years false motives have entered into the historical bloodstream, where they have continued circulating.

What Britain wanted was the right to apply its laws to its people living in New Zealand. It also intended to “civilise” Māori (through creating the short-lived Office of Protector of Aborigines) and protect Māori land from unethical purchases (the pre-emption provision in Article Two of the Treaty).

And Britain wanted to afford Māori the same rights as British subjects in cases where one group’s actions impinged on the other’s (as in the 1842 Maketū case, involving the conviction for murder and execution of a young Māori man).

The Treaty was not a response to a French threat to New Zealand. And it was not an attempt to conquer Māori, nor to deceive them through subterfuge.

5. Myths of a ‘real’ Treaty and 4th article
Over the past two decades, some have alleged there is a “real” Treaty — the so-called “Littlewood Treaty” – that has been concealed because it contains a different set of provisions. Such conspiratorial claims are easily dispelled.

The text of the Littlewood Treaty is known and it is merely a handwritten copy of the actual Treaty. And, most obviously, it cannot be regarded as a treaty on the basis that no one signed it.

Another popular myth is that there is a fourth article of the Treaty, which purportedly guarantees religious freedom. This article does not appear in either the Māori or English texts of the Treaty, and there is no evidence the signatories regarded it as a provision of the agreement.

It is a suggestion that emerged in the 1990s, but lacks any evidential or legal basis.

Finally, there is the argument that the Treaty supports the democratic process. In fact, the Treaty ushered in a non-representative regime in the colony. It was the 1852 New Zealand Constitution Act that gave the country a democratic government – a statute that incidentally made no reference to the Treaty’s provisions.

This list is not exhaustive. But in dispensing with areas of poor interpretation, we can improve the chances of a more informed and productive discussion about the Treaty.

Dr Paul Moon is professor of history, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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.

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been warned that Māori will not sit by without a fight if the government attempts to meddle with te Tiriti o Waitangi.

As politicians of all stripes have flocked to Rātana near Whanganui, it was a rare chance for Māori to address politicians directly on the pae — something that holds extra weight this year, because the annual celebrations come so soon after last weekend’s national hui.

Among those in attendance were Labour and Green MPs, Prime Minister Luxon, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones, while Te Pāti Māori were welcomed on Tuesday. ACT did not have a representative there.

Rāhui Papa, a representative of the Kiingitanga and Waikato-Tainui, said they were watching the rhetoric coming out of the Beehive very closely.

“Quite frankly, te iwi Māori — and the hui at Turangawaewae confirmed, the hui here at Rātana has confirmed — that if there is any measure of meddling with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Māori will not sit idly by.

“The message is: The Tiriti o Waitangi is sacrosanct in the view of te ao Māori. We truly believe that the only treaty in town is the one that was written in the indigenous language.”

Amid a climate of concern over the Treaty Principles legislation, Luxon is calling for calm over a bill he himself has said feels divisive.

Government ‘will honour the Treaty’
“The government has no plans and never has had plans to amend or revise the Treaty, or the Treaty settlements that we have all worked so hard together to achieve.

“The government will honour the Treaty.”

His speech to the Rātana faithful largely a speech to all Māori — and focusing on his favourite word: outcomes.

“Ours will be a government with goals for better healthcare, better school achievement, and less welfare dependency.

“When I talk about wanting better outcomes, I’m not talking about giving out hand-outs to close the gaps. I want to improve the opportunities so that people who are prepared to get to work and work hard, can make the most of their opportunities and get ahead.”

Ratana representative Kamaka Manuel told the government that promise of better outcomes was hard to believe.

“What we do see is the first part of the word ‘outcomes’ — or like ‘Māori out’ — and we’re left with the last part: ‘how come’.”

Māori outcomes ‘gone backwards’
He once again reiterated his claim that outcomes for Māori had gone backwards under Labour, and that National had “no intention and no commitment” to take ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill beyond a first reading.

There may be no commitment or intention at this point to do so, but Luxon has repeatedly refused to categorically rule out further support for it.

“It’s consistent with our coalition agreements, we have said and I don’t know how to be any clearer about it, there is no commitment to support it beyond the first reading.”

He was asked by reporters if he would say National would clearly say they would not support it further, but Luxon again said there was “no intention, no commitment”.

For a day full of politicians, Rātana is not supposed to be overtly political.

Deputy Prime Minister Peters acknowledged that — but still gave a political speech anyway — lashing out at Labour to pockets of heckling.

“These people will promise you a bridge where there is no river . . . I want to ask you this question: what’s their record?.”

impromptu standup
In an impromptu standup with reporters, NZ First’s Shane Jones said a review of the Waitangi Tribunal would need to address whether its powers should remain intact.

“An institution that’s been around for 50 years should not expect to continue on uncritically for another set of decades without being reviewed.”

Spurred on by speeches from the morehu, Labour’s Willie Jackson said it had made the opposition parties more united than ever.

“What they were saying the whaikōrero was that there was one enemy . . . and the enemy was the government, and so they wanted us to all . . . to come together as a group — Greens, Pāti Māori, Labour.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins, in his first public appearance of the year, spent all of a minute talking about Labour’s deep connection to Rātana — and then went on the attack.

“The role of us as political leaders is to light that path forward, it’s not to exploit the fear that comes from uncertainty.”

Hipkins said the current government’s approach was emboldening racism, which he later clarified related to things like the Treaty Principles Bill.

Policies ‘enable racism’
“I don’t think those are things that a responsible government should do.

“The policies of this current government encourage, foster, and enable racism in New Zealand and we should call that out for what it is.”

This time last year, Hipkins was speaking as prime minister. He now admitted — from the benefit of hindsight — the last government didn’t get it all right.

“One of the things that we didn’t get right was that making sure we were bringing non-Māori New Zealanders along with us on that journey.”

There was a notable absentee — the ACT Party, whose Treaty Principles Bill National has agreed to support to Select Committee, but no further.

“We know there could have been some trepidation like last week at Turangawaewae where we only had a couple from the three-headed taniwha government that we have in New Zealand today,” Rāhui Papa said.

‘Dishonour’ to Māori world
Greens’ co-leader Marama Davidson told reporters that ACT’s no-show at Rātana was a display of “absolute ignorance” and a dishonour to the Māori world.

“It dismisses the mana and the importance of Ratana, of Wiremu Pōtiki Ratana, and te ao Māori and their political voice.”

But David Seymour was brushing off the criticism.

“There was a time when they didn’t manage to invite me and now they seem to be complaining that they’ve invited me but I haven’t come. I guess one day the stars will align.”

Seymour has never attended Rātana festivities, describing it as a “religious event”, but he will be attending Waitangi next month.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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.

South Taranaki’s iwi and council have drawn up a new partnership agreement just as the Aotearoa New Zealand’s new conservative coalition government plans to take an axe to co-governance.

He Pou Tikanga Partnership Strategy sets out why and how South Taranaki District Council will increase collaboration with the area’s four iwi.

The agreement was created by the council and the iwi post-settlement governance entities – Te Kaahui o Rauru, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui, Te Korowai o Ngāruahine and Te Kāhui o Taranaki.

Cooperation includes not just leaders but staff from both sides working together.

The agreement says South Taranaki District Council will pay to make this happen.

“As partners to council, iwi must have a participatory role in development of agreed relevant council policy, service delivery, special projects and decision making.

“More resourcing from the council and other avenues is needed for iwi to engage and this resourcing needs to be explicit.”

Cooperation crucial
Mayor Phil Nixon said it was crucial that staff from both sides worked alongside each other.

“If we don’t do it from the ground up — which takes it right from the officers to begin with — if we’re not all on the same page working together it doesn’t work.”

The council’s iwi committee Te Kāhui Matauraura last week endorsed He Pou Tikanga for inclusion in the 2024-34 long term plan.

But just two days later the new government set out its plan to wind back co-governance with Māori, including in local government rules.

The coalition deal said the previous government’s replacement for the Resource Management Act would be repealed by Christmas.

National Environment Standards on freshwater would be also replaced, along with the National Policy Statement on freshwater “to rebalance Te Mana o te Wai to better reflect the interests of all water users”.

Those new rules introduced under Labour had required more say for iwi and hapū in council decision-making.

Replacement rules
The new Minister for Regulation, ACT’s David Seymour, said the replacement rules would instead have “a founding principle of property rights which has been absent from those laws for far too long”.

Mayor Nixon hoped the government would stick with National’s promise to support localism.

“We work well with our iwi; I think we have a really good relationship, and so it’s a matter of building on that and continuing that because I don’t want to see any of this go backwards in any way.”

The coalition agreement also demands that any Māori council wards established without a referendum — which includes two in South Taranaki — face a referendum at the next local body elections.

Nixon hopes the community will get behind the wards and the new partnership agreement.

“When we were first talking about Māori ward . . .  there was a certain amount of apprehension in the community here to what it was.

“But I think now, with the way we’re progressing with it, I think the community is seeing actually this is working.”

He Pou Tikanga has taken more than three years to negotiate, and iwi representatives on Te Kāhui Matauraura were enthusiastic about its potential.

Ngāruahine’s John Hooker said iwi and hapū strategic plans could now be counted in the council’s plans.

Hooker said it made sense for iwi and council planners to cooperate, and for iwi project managers “to work collaboratively with sister projects occurring at district council level”.

He said the growing trust between council and iwi was influential in Ngāruahine refocusing its asset investment back in South Taranaki.

“We’re starting to focus a lot of that investment into our district, instead of it occurring at Wellington or nationally.”

Taranaki iwi representative Peter Moeahu said He Pou Tikanga was a huge change to the antagonistic response he received from South Taranaki’s council 35 years ago.

“What we have now is financial clout and everyone wants to be our friend.

“It cements the relationship between iwi and council so that we can build a better future for the whole community.”

He Pou Tikanga also sets out that:

• Iwi and hapū will be involved as early as possible in decision making
• The council will build its cultural capacity
• Iwi involvement can cut consultation times and improve outcomes
• Council and iwi will work closely on climate and environmental issues
• Iwi and council will develop goals and actions in the annual planning cycle
• The strategy doesn’t negate relationships between individual iwi and the council

Local Democracy Reporting is funded through NZ On Air. Asia Pacific Report is a partner.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Green Party says it will double the Best Start payment from $69 a week to $140 — and it will also make it available for all children under three years.

Greens co-leader Marama Davidson announced the policy today, saying it is part of a “fully costed plan” paid for with a fair tax system.

“One in 10 children are growing up in poverty. For Māori, it is one in five. How is it possible that in a wealthy country like ours, there are thousands of children without enough to eat, a good bed, warm clothes, and decent shoes?,” she asked.

“That is why the Green Party would ensure all families have what they need for these early years, by doubling Best Start from $69 a week, to $140, and make it universal for all children under three years.”

Currently, families can receive the $69 weekly Best Start payment until their baby turns one, no matter the income.

However, they do not get that payment while they are receiving the paid parental leave payment. After the first year, only families earning under $96,295 are eligible to receive the payment until their child turns three.

The doubling of the Best Start payment is part of the Green Party’s Income Guarantee plan.

“This universal payment for the first three years recognises that just like in our older years through superannuation, the very first years of a new baby’s life are a time when every family needs extra support,” Davidson said.

Fairer Working for Families
“Under this plan we’ll also reform Working for Families into a simpler, fairer system.

“This will provide a payment of up to $215 every week for the first child, and $135 a week for every other child, in addition to the Best Start payments.

“With the Green Party in government, we can take action to guarantee every whānau has enough to get by no matter what.

“There is no reason for any child in Aotearoa to go hungry or to live in a damp, cold house. Poverty is a political choice.

“Our plan will provide lasting solutions that will guarantee everyone has what they need to live a good life and cover the essentials — even when times are tough.”

Since 2021, the Labour government has increased the Best Start payment from $60 to $69 a week.

• Monday night’s Newshub-Reid Research poll gave the Greens a boost, rising to 14.2 percent, as the Labour Party dipped slightly to 26.5 percent.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The widow of the final victim in the 2019 terrorist attack says things have not improved for New Zealand Muslims.

Hamimah Amhat was recently exercising in Christchurch when a passing motorist screamed at her to go back to her country.

“That shook me, I just had to sit down and let myself calm down.”

Amhat said she did not stoop to the level of such hatred but found herself feeling bitterly disappointed.

“It was broad daylight and in a university area. That is just one of the recent incidents that has happened to me but I know of plenty of others too which is very discouraging.”

New Zealand’s annual gathering on countering terrorism and violent extremism, He Whenua Taurikura Hui 2022, got underway in Auckland today.

Members of the Māori, Pasifika, Jewish, Muslim, rainbow, and many more communities will unite at the Cordis Hotel for the two-day hui.

Conversations crucial
Amhat said conversations were crucial to prevent another mass murder.

Zekeriya Tuyan was the 51st victim of the 15 March 2019 terror attack, passing away 48 days after being shot in the chest.

He was survived by his beloved wife and two sons.

“The boys were very young, we lost a great friend, husband and father.”

Amhat said her husband treated her like a queen and she was still getting used to opening doors for herself as Tuyan always insisted on doing this for her.

“Simple things like that, he put me on a pedestal.”

Amhat is the chair of the Sakinah Community Trust, a kaupapa created by the daughters, wives and sisters of March 15 victims.

Strength and well-being
“It involves promotion of strength and well-being in the community.”

Among the many initiatives the group is involved with is Unity Week, which runs from March 15-22.

“It is about galvanising our allies, and touching the hearts of those sitting on the fence.”

The week acknowledges the affected communities which Amhat said were not just the people who were directly impacted by the events.

“It’s also the people who pulled up their sleeves and got together even though they were grieving as well and in shock, they made time to help the families and make sure the community continued to function.”

Amhat said the Muslim community could not sit back and wait for tolerance to come to them.

“People find it hard to approach us, just recently my driving instructor told me, ‘I didn’t know how to react to a Muslim woman,’ and I just had to tell him to smile, we are human beings.”

She said education was key to dispelling fears and myths.

‘Sharing our space together’
“We invite them to share our space together. Cut through our skin and we bleed red blood.”

While we were moving forward as a nation, things could be faster and more effective, Amhat said.

She cited recent incidents in Aotearoa including the Dunedin student who had her hijab ripped off, New Zealand soldiers linked to white supremacist groups and school board nominees spouting hateful ideology.

Amhat said anti-Chinese racism was also prevalent during the pandemic.

“It was as if people had forgotten about March 15 and racism actually increased towards the Chinese and everyone else who looked Chinese to those discriminatory people.”

Formalities at the hui began by acknowledging the survivors of the 2019 terrorist attack in Christchurch.

The morning then focussed on the consequences of colonialism and near two centuries of Pākehā dominance in Aotearoa.

‘Colonial entitlement’ still rife
Auckland University professor of indigenous studies Tracey McIntosh opened panel discussions looking at why the country needed to face deep but necessary discomfort over the impact colonisation had for Māori.

This included relocation, confiscation and invasion.

“Of all the times I hear government agencies say Te Tiriti, if there is one word that seems to avoid their tongue, that’s the word colonialism,” McIntosh said.

Those impacts included dishonouring the Treaty with impunity, mass incarceration, immigration policies and racialised myth making, she said.

“The forces that brought us here today are no less than pure, distilled, colonial entitlement.”

There was a responsibility of powers to humbly engage with the issue of racism, McIntosh said.

“You have centrist power mongers who passively protect and maintain colonial privilege while presenting themselves as benign allies.”

Independent body
Māori deserved an independent body to monitor threats, she said.

“While extremists get the most attention, because they are the loudest and most violent, they hold less structural power.”

Both the Crown and government agencies had a lot of work to do, McIntosh said.

“Taking on a Māori name and logo but not sharing power is not equality.”

New Zealand had seen the rise of groups that represented hate and hostility through online emboldenment, she said.

The 2019 terror attack disturbed New Zealand’s complacency, McIntosh said.

Another prominent Māori leader said his people continued to endure terrorism at the hands of the state.

Enduring terror acts
Bill Hamilton of the National Iwi Chairs Forum spoke of the terror acts his people had endured such as invasion and abduction.

“Our children were taken and continue to be taken by the likes of Oranga Tamariki, and those are violent terrorist acts on our people.”

Aotearoa still had very subtle and sneaky forms of racism today, he said.

Hamilton said what was supposed to guarantee protection, equality and a mutually beneficial relationship — Te Tiriti o Waitangi — had instead seen the demonisation of Māori leaders, beatings for use of te reo, and widespread invasion.

“Our grandparents were beaten as kids for speaking their language.”

The state needed to apologise for the terror inflicted on the Māori people, he said.

Hamilton believed there had been a residual effect across society where people viewed Māori as less than equal.

He Whenua Taurikura Hui 2022 continues tomorrow with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern scheduled to speak about 9am at Cordis Hotel.

The topic will be diversity in democracy, creating safe spaces online and countering messages of hate.

Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) is represented at the hui by Auckland University of Technology communications academic and Pacific Journalism Review assistant editor Khairiah A Rahman.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A few weeks ago this article from Stuff (24 Sep) was drawn to my attention: The shocking stats that prove Covid19 does not kill equally. While I have some problems with the article’s interpretation of the data, by and large the article itself was reasonable. Less so the headline, which is different in the online version of the story. (The print version omits the sensationalist word ‘shocking’. I wonder if there is a general pattern to present online versions of stories in a more sensationalist manner?)

In fact, there’s nothing surprising about the Covid19 statistics indicating more Māori and Pasifika deaths. The charts in the article, however, perpetrate the erroneous interpretation in the headline, that Covid19 is in some evil sense discriminatory. (In particular the chart that shows death rates of people aged over 90.) The facts are that, among population subgroups, Covid19 mortality reflects differences in general mortality.

With respect to recent data (ie since the beginning of August), just two Pasifika people have died of Covid19 (as the ‘underlying cause); one in their 70s, and one aged under 60 (though 20 others have died ‘with’ Covid19). Ten Māori have died of Covid19 in that recent time period (32 others ‘with’ covid), only one of whom was over 90. In that same time period, 176 people of ‘European or other’ ethnicity died of Covid19, 56 of whom were aged over 90.

While the article was about the whole pandemic, not just its recent phase, it remains no more useful to focus on deaths of Pasifika aged over 90 than it does to focus on Pakeha aged over 100. Regardless of Covid19, the probability that a New Zealander of Pacific Island descent will reach the age of 90 is similar to the probability that a Pakeha New Zealander will reach 100.

Life Expectancy by Ethnicity

Ethnicity statistics in Aotearoa New Zealand should always be treated with caution. For example, a person with just one Māori great-grandparent would typically be classified as Māori, regardless of the ethnicities of the other seven great-grandparents. (This suggests that the mortality and morbidity statistics are even worse for people whose predominant ethnicity is Māori, especially for people who are perceived as Māori [either due to their name or to their appearance].)

If we try to compare socio-economic ‘apples’ with socio-economic ‘apples’, we have almost no data which can give the true picture. My suspicion is that a dapper Māori man such as Scotty Morrison has a similar life expectancy as his Pakeha equivalents. And my suspicion is that a Pakeha solo-mum with three children in emergency housing has a similar life expectancy as a Māori solo-mum in the same situation. Generally, we are very light on evidence that Māori and Pasifika people have lower life expectancies than their Pakeha neighbours.

The problem is that, in proportion to their sub-population totals, relatively more Māori and Pasifika are in impoverished or facing other stressful life circumstances. The telling Covid19 statistics are shown in the table below. The median ages of death for the different ethnicities, estimated from Ministry of Health covid mortality data, are:

We may regard the final row of the above table as valid estimates for life expectancy for each sub-population. It’s not a pretty picture for Māori. What it says is that Māori have significantly more health comorbidities than other ethnic groups. In particular, this represents the socio-economic circumstances that many Māori face; this reflects significant inequality among Aotearoans in general, and also within the Māori sub-population. It reflects the substantial problem in New Zealand of rural poverty. It reflects historical circumstances faced by indigenous peoples throughout the ‘new world’. Some of that is due to biological circumstances which go back into deep history. These include being at the wrong end of the immunity gradients for most diseases during the globalisation phases of world history; and it reflects – for example – an evolutionary context which, among other things, makes Māori (and Pasifika) people comparatively intolerant to alcohol and sugar. (In Eurasia, tolerance to alcohol was a biological adaptation to the problem of water-born diseases. In England a culture developed, especially among men, of drinking ‘small beer’ instead of water. In other places, wine and other fermented drinks were partial substitutes for water.)

The above ‘life-expectancy’ table (especially the second row) also suggests that people with substantial comorbidities are more likely to get Covid19 as well as being more likely to die of Covid19.

Getting back to the interpretation of the Stuff article, because life expectancy for Māori and Pasifika is so much lower than for Pakeha, it means that we should be comparing covid mortality rates for Māori/Pasifika in their 60s with Pakeha in their 70s, comparing Māori/Pasifika in their 70s with Pakeha in their 80s, and Māori/Pasifika in their 80s with Pakeha in their 90s. A randomly chosen Māori person of a particular age, in essence, is as likely to die (from any cause) within twelve months as a similarly chosen Pakeha person ten years older.

While discrimination is certainly part of the ‘historical circumstance’ problem many Māori face, Covid19 doesn’t add to that problem; it simply reflects it. (And we should note that historical discrimination is more nuanced than intellectually-lazy words like ‘colonisation’ or ‘imperialism’ convey. Subsequent to the era of industrial capitalism which began at scale around 200 years ago, life expectancies have increased, with the life expectancies of ‘white’ people (and latterly East Asian people) increasing the most. While non-imperial historical counterfactuals might have had a smaller life-expectancy gap between Polynesian peoples and (say) Anglo-Celtic peoples, it is unlikely any such counterfactuals could have achieved a higher life expectancy for Māori than Māori have now.

Co-mortality and critical states

The final issue of importance to note is that ’cause of death’ is not a simple discrete matter. In an important sense, probably most deaths are due to ‘old age’, but few other than the Queen of England have the privilege of having ‘old age’ listed as their sole cause of death.

The reality is that most deaths have more than one ‘clinical’ cause, and environmental events such as pandemics can kill in non-clinical as well as clinical ways. (Poor quality, under-resourced, or inaccessible health services count here.) In the fable of ‘the straw breaking the camel’s back’, ‘straw’ would never be listed as the sole cause of that camel’s subsequent death. The camel was in a critical state before the straw added, fatally, to its burden.

It’s interesting that ‘comorbidity’ is listed as a word in the dictionary, but ‘comortality’ is not.

Co-mortality is the reason why an ‘excess deaths’ approach is the best indicator of the scale of epidemic deaths. The sadness is that demography is the poor cousin of social science. Much core demographic data – births by sex, deaths by age/sex and place of birth, arrival/departures by age/sex and place of birth – is hard to find in even the rich world. In many countries it remains largely absent. Population censuses are required to make up for poor record-keeping; but too often they are under-resourced, and the value of the core demographic information is under-understood. In New Zealand we remain substantially ignorant about intra-national population movements.

Almost all the Covid19 deaths tallied – whether ‘with covid’, of ‘covid’, or ‘as a consequence of covid’ – are in fact co-mortal deaths. Very few people have died of Covid19 without some other vulnerability being present.

What matters most is an understanding of critical states. Typically, when things go wrong there are multiple causes. Today we use the increasingly popular (and indeed overused) phrase ‘perfect storm’ to indicate the problem. A person is in a critical state when just one additional factor will kill them. (High blood-pressure is one oft-cited factor that can contribute to a person being in a critical state.)

Surprisingly, a person in a critical state may to all intents and purposes be healthy. One person may be much more vulnerable than another to a particular fatal illness, but not obviously so. One seemingly small trigger event may have a fatal impact on that person, but may have no impact on the other person. For a person in a critical state, a trigger event may be sufficient to cause death. (Or, as in ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’ which incorporates ‘long covid’, a trigger event can initiate a long period of chronic unwellness for some people but not others.) An otherwise healthy individual with, say, the Huntingdon’s gene may in fact be in a critical state; one small trigger may unleash the uncurable disease.

‘Old age’ is a critical state; a state which some people – and some peoples – reach earlier than others.

Systems may or may not be in a critical state. (The name ‘critical state’ comes from the nuclear sciences.) A highly stressed population is likely to be in a critical state; especially a population having to constantly negotiate with unsympathetic bureaucracies, permanently raising the levels of cortisol in the bloodstream. A homeless person will likely be in a critical state, meaning that a trigger such as a covid infection could have elevated consequences.

If Māori are more likely to be homeless, or have no socially-approved source of income, then Māori are more likely to die in a pandemic. And die at younger ages.

Is Covid19 a trigger that’s causing human existence to unravel? I suspect that a keyword search on the word ‘existential’ would show a big uptick this decade. Growth capitalism, the way we practice it, is a system that places most people in a near-critical state. (If a critical state is when one more aggravation is fatal, then a near-critical state is when two more aggravations are fatal.) There are signs that this comparatively mild infectious disease has triggered a turning point in global history, and that’s partly because the climate system was already in a critical state.

While Covid19 has been a disease of the rich, and spread mainly by the rich, it is a disease that has revealed the widespread comorbidities – critical states and near-critical states – which our economically vulnerable populations experience. So while the (often oblivious) privileged sub-populations spread covid more while suffering less – not unlike the environmental consequences of careless human behaviour – it is the sub-populations in critical and near-critical states who die the most.

Our systemic problems are our systems in critical states; superficially they may have looked healthy before 2020. Since then, for those willing to see, Covid19 has become the highlighter, not the central problem. If we are homo sapiens – wise ‘men’ – we will look to solutions which destress our systems. What we should not do is aggravate our systemic problems by converting near-critical systems into critical systems; into systems that can become ‘perfect storms’, destroyable by mere straws.

Is Covid19 returning?

My recent statistical analyses suggest ‘yes’. See my Tourist Europe again: Covid19 Waves compared (Evening Report, 17 October 2022). Spain has just had its worst round of Covid19 deaths since April 2020. Covid’s arriving now, in those full aircraft coming here. October is peak season for people flying from Europe to New Zealand. And of course, covid is circulating domestically, and is known to resurge as immunity wanes. It is far too soon to think that Covid19 has become just a winter problem.

If New Zealand’s ability to cope in 2020 and 2021 was weak, and required drastic emergency measures then, New Zealand’s ability to cope this summer may be even weaker. Aotearoa New Zealand is now facing a ‘cost-of-living crisis’, in an economy with severe labour shortages. The New Zealand economy is in a critical state; it is ‘supply inelastic’, meaning it has no surge capacity to respond to a new imported crisis.

Policy is now focussed on creating a recession, the only way today’s policymakers believe they can respond to recent increases in the price level. (Refer to these RNZ stories: Domestic inflation rise ‘a shocker’ – economists; Analysis: Inflation rate higher than expected; Unemployment next challenge for economy – experts.)

New Zealand as a whole was not in a critical state in February 2020. It’s closer to being in such a state today. Marginalised sub-populations will be affected most from any trigger events this decade. Many, but by no means all, vulnerable New Zealanders are of Māori or Pasifika ethnicity.

*******

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: Labour’s fraught battle to retain the Māori vote

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

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

Has Labour let down Māori?

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

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

The powerful role of the Labour Māori caucus in government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The changing power of Labour Māori caucus

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

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

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

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

The Māori Labour MPs need to keep their government delivering

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

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

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

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

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

Other items of interest and importance today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Republic is possible

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

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

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

New constitutional debates will be part of republicanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicanism as a culture war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading on the monarchy

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

Other items of interest and importance today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An iwi that pastor Brian Tamaki descends from are calling him out to say he is putting Māori communities at risk.

This follows mass protests across the country on Tuesday organised by a “freedom” group set up by Tamaki opposing vaccines and lockdown restrictions.

Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Hikairo located between Kāwhia and Te Awamutu were especially concerned with the number of young tamariki involved in the rallies.

They said Tāmaki, who was one of their own, was asking Māori communities to undermine science, putting their people at risk.

They have now called on the Destiny Church leader to take a whānau-first approach.

New Zealand’s Ministry of Health reported 185 new community cases of covid-19 today, including 25 in Waikato and eight in Northland.

Rūnanga chair Susan Turner said because Tamaki was a descendant of their rūnanga it was important to show leadership and encourage the right messaging and approach to combatting covid 19.

She said Tamaki needed to promote scientific advice among whānau, iwi and the wider community to protect each other against the virus.

‘Share the right messages’
“Brian as a member of Ngāti Hikairo, we wanted to encourage him to share the right messages and dispel the rhetoric that he and his followers are saying to our people.

“We want them to follow science and go with the right advice and for our people to be united in this fight against covid,” she said.

The inclusion of mixed messaging related to freedom and self-determination was particularly concerning.

It comes as the rūnanga battles to prevent an outbreak amongst Ngāti Hikairoa whānau.

Turner said it did not reflect a mātauranga Māori approach as tino rangatiratanga should be represented by a collective effort to protect whānau and those most vulnerable.

The current approach from Tamaki was promoting a colonial approach to preserving life and liberty, she said.

“The biggest concern that we’ve got is the fact that they’re giving our people the wrong information.

Tamaki message ‘opposing tikanga’
“Those sentiments simply oppose the whole concept of what we believe is our tikanga which is about protecting ourselves, protecting our whānau and the people that live in our community.

“It’s clear to us that this virus is going to spread, and we need to do all we can to protect our whānau, our rangatahi and our tamariki,” she said.

The rūnanga strongly supported vaccines and said Tamaki carried a Ngāti Hikairo name, and with that came obligations to use his platform to strengthen Māori communities by encouraging whānau to get vaccinated and comply with health restrictions.

A spokesperson for Tamaki rejected RNZ’s request for an interview but said they wished to speak to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hikairo face-to-face about the issues at hand.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“We hear a lot of anecdotal reports of that. Also, the rules were relaxed a bit in terms of more social gathering outdoors and outdoor gatherings on the face of it should be relatively low risk because there’s better ventilation, but of course, it does provide more opportunities for mixing and they may turn into indoor parties and so on,” he told RNZ Checkpoint tonight.

“So I think we are seeing those effects.”

He said on the plus side, as the number of people vaccinated increased, the reproduction number would decrease.

Hurting Māori and Pasifika
However, the outbreak could still get out of control, hurting Māori and Pasifika in particular.

“The unvaccinated are increasingly Māori and Pacific people. So we do run the risk of this becoming a very unequal outbreak, and I think that’s a really critical factor that government needs to look at, at the moment.”

Professor Baker also said a level 4 lockdown may still be necessary, depending on the outbreak’s movement.

“I don’t think that we can rule out the need for some kind of circuit breaker lockdown in the future, but at the moment, it looks like the system is managing these numbers.”

He said if the country could reach 90 percent vaccination coverage, it would be reasonable to move to level 2.

He said Auckland’s border could be dropped by Christmas “potentially” if there was uniformly high vaccine coverage across Aotearoa.

“This is where I think we could definitely move down to alert level two, which actually puts very few barriers in the way of the virus, in practice, and in addition, we could have the schools open again.

“So I think that would be a good point to make that move.”

But it was critical that high vaccination coverage included Māori and Pasifika demographics, for dropping the border to be safe, he said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz