Wednesday, 19 April 2023

Game-Changer.

It’s Okay Boomers: Either through careful sociological study, or by pure intuition, Kieran McAnulty has grasped that a substantial number – maybe even a majority – of the Baby Boom Generation can be won away from their fear of a devastating racist backlash. Boomers no longer have to worry about what the older generation will say or do – because most of the RSA Generation are dead and buried. It’s their kids and their grandkids that they should be thinking of now.

KIERAN MCANULTY has changed the game in a way only open to authentic political leaders. Instead of shying away from the challenges of co-governance, he has leaned into them. Instead of hiding behind the obfuscating language of official communications, he has demonstrated the extraordinary power of a simple “Yes” or “No”. What’s more, he has done all this in the accents of an ordinary Kiwi bloke. Kieran McAnulty is the person Chris Hipkins is trying to be.

Sticking up for the Treaty of Waitangi was always the winning response for the Sixth Labour Government. Most New Zealanders are justifiably proud of their country’s efforts to offer the indigenous Māori a measure of redress for the injustices heaped upon them during the creation of the settler-state called New Zealand. It is, of course, true that not all New Zealanders feel this way, but those who reject the promises of the Treaty grow fewer in number with every passing year. Young New Zealand, the demographic fast embracing “Aotearoa” as their nation, believe in the Treaty – and will fight for it.

McAnulty gets this because, at just 38 years-of-age, he’s a member of that younger demographic. The Baby Boom generation came of political age under the shadow of a racist majority. The majority Rob Muldoon knew he could count on in 1975 and 1981. The reactionary social formation that was still there in great numbers back in 2004 when Don Brash delivered his in/famous Orewa Speech. The prime motivator of Helen Clark’s ruthless response to the Court of Appeal’s decision on the foreshore and seabed. But McAnulty, alongside many others in Labour’s caucus, is two generations away from the politicians who were young in the 1960s and 70s. That world has gone – just as gaslight and gaiters had departed the world of the post-war generation.

So why didn’t Gen-Xers like Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins lean-in to the co-governance debate like McAnulty? One possible explanation is that they were never able to shake-off their fear that the Big Racist Monster was still out there, still capable of upending progressive governments. They had, after all, seen at close hand Clark’s reaction to the post-Orewa polls. They had been witnesses, not only to the Labour leader’s fear of a Pakeha racist backlash, but also to her antipathy towards the “haters and wreckers” of Māori nationalism. Those sort of experiences leave a deep impression.

For McAnulty, however, they are yesterday’s political calculations. Either through careful sociological study, or by pure intuition, he has grasped what so many of his colleagues have not. That a substantial number – maybe even a majority – of the Baby Boomers can be won away from their fear of the Big Racist Monster. That the people who marched against the Vietnam War, protested the Springbok Tour, and organised for a nuclear-free New Zealand no longer have to worry about what the older generation will say or do – because most of the RSA Generation are dead and buried. It’s their kids and their grandkids that the Boomers should be thinking of now.

McAnulty’s other key insight is that when younger New Zealanders hear the word “democracy” their reaction is often quite different from that of their parents and grandparents. Democracy was what the Baby Boomers parents had fought for during the Second World War. It was the precious heirloom of the “Free World” through all the years of the Cold War. For the young New Zealanders who grew up in the shadow of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, however, democracy has been subjected to an altogether more robust interrogation.

It was under democracy that the New Zealand trade union movement was gutted, and never allowed to recover. It was under democracy that the welfare state became as cold as charity. It was democracy that looked at global warming – and did nothing. Democracy that denied an entire generation their own affordable home. Democracy that allowed big corporations to wreck the New Zealand environment, and then take their profits offshore. Sure, you could vote, once every three years, but nothing ever seemed to change. Democracy might have done plenty for their grandparents’ and parents’ generations, but it has done bugger-all for theirs.

When older New Zealanders look at co-governance they are prone to see the demise of one-person, one-vote. But young New Zealanders look at the mess local government has made of their cities and towns, rivers and forests; they think about the way farming and business interests always seem to get what they want – often at the expense of everybody and everything else; and they ask themselves: Could the Māori make a worse job of looking after Aotearoa than Pakeha democracy? Could co-governance with mana whenua be any worse than co-governance with capitalists?

McAnulty has, quite rightly, pointed out that New Zealand has developed its own version of democracy. That it is steadily moving towards a way of governing that sees achieving consensus as preferable to, and certainly more sensible than, a 50 percent+1 tyranny of the majority. Both Māori and Pakeha are talking about a constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi, rather than the Westminster system, might look like. Ways forward that follow the paths already laid down in numerous Treaty settlements. A system of governance based on the peoples we are becoming, rather than the far-from-democratic institutions the British colonisers brought with them.

If McAnulty’s colleagues have the courage to follow his lead, then the looming election may yet become an historical turning-point. With National and Act offering nothing more than more of the same, Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori have been given the chance to join the most progressive elements of the older generations with the hopes and aspirations of younger New Zealanders, thereby forging an electoral alliance equal to the challenges of an uncertain and demanding future.

More than quarter-of-a-century ago, I concluded a feature article entitled “The Struggle For Sovereignty”, written for New Zealand Political Review, with the following sentences:

New Zealanders are heading into a great storm of change. Much that is precious to us will pass away. As Pakeha we have grown accustomed to being the colonisers rather than the colonised. Loss of power will be a new experience for us. As the second great wave of colonisation washes over us, our best chance of survival will be to reach out for the hands of the tangata whenua – whose feet are sunk deepest in the earth of Aotearoa. In the storm of change that is coming, the strength which that position gives to Māori will make them the only solid point around which everything else twists and turns. If we, as Pakeha, do not reach out and grasp that strength, the fury of the storm will blow us far away.

That storm is now upon us.


This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Tuesday, 18 April 2023.

19 comments:

Archduke Piccolo said...

If the game is changed for the better for everyone - that is to say to their benefit - then amen to that!

Odysseus said...

Democracy runs deeper than you suppose Chris, and "co-governance" is fundamentally inconsistent with it, because as Professor Elizabeth Rata has pointed out this week, democracy rests on the idea that rights belong to the individual as a citizen, not as a member of a group. Co-governance means the non-Maori voter has one fifth the worth of a Maori voter, which is intolerable and which contradicts all the international human rights norms to which New Zealand subscribes. The idea that Maori might look after the natural environment more carefully than Europeans is also fanciful. Up until the arrival of the European, Maori were limited to subsistence cultivation because of their lack of technology. Even so they destroyed large swathes of the South Island's forests by fire. Colonization arguably saved Maori from destruction through constant inter-tribal warfare.

The role of the Treaty in the 21st century needs a critical re-evaluation. It was effectively superseded by self-government in 1852. It is hardly likely to offer a successful template for a modern multicultural society such as we have become.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"One possible explanation is that they were never able to shake-off their fear that the Big Racist Monster was still out there, still capable of upending progressive governments."

I'd love to see some evidence that they aren't still out there. Anecdotally, you only have to hang around the MSN news site. They're not necessarily tremendously numerous but they are very loud. And loudness does get you a certain influence, because it does scare politicians.

"If McAnulty’s colleagues have the courage to follow his lead"

I should probably avoid predictions, but that ain't gonna happen. David Seymour & Co will be all over it like a cheap suit. And they are loud as well.


Incidentally, I thought you hated co-governance Chris?

"It was under democracy that the New Zealand trade union movement was gutted, and never allowed to recover. It was under democracy that the welfare state became as cold as charity. It was democracy that looked at global warming – and did nothing. "

You can do a lot under democracy, if like Roger Douglas & Co you ignore democracy. Just look at the US.
Douglas made huge changes to the New Zealand economy many of which were deleterious to most of the people living in the country. Without once asking people if they wanted it. And Labour certainly never campaigned on it. And the US has an unelected Supreme Court consisting of religious bigots, who – let's say were disingenuous when they were interviewed and have made decisions which the vast majority the country are against.

Shane McDowall said...

Hobson's Pledge has an online petition trying to stop Aotearoa being used officially as the name for New Zealand.

It has attracted over 115,000 signatures.

I suspect the crypto-racist anti-Maori bigots are more numerous than you think, Chris.

I call New Zealand ... New Zealand.

I wonder if the Hobson's Pledge supporters object to Ireland being called Eire, or Wales being called Cymru ?

Brent Morrissey said...

Curious that you have used ANZC to slag off the RSA racists . Few of your stereotype still survive and are likely to be on life support rather than boozing at the RSA.
In fact most of the RSAs themselves no longer exist as most of their members would have perished during the seventies and eighties . Dying no doubt from old wounds with the screams of their dying mates ringing in their fetid memories . Or with the spectre of Mersa Matruh with its dust darkness and chaos amid the roar of haka as Pakeha and Maori faught their way out of a trap breaking the Germans spirt in their
victory

Our present day jostling for moral headroom seems insipid in comparison to the pride that characterised the New Zealander who went before us

Mark Simpson said...

One of your strengths Chris is to see, process, contextualise and articulate recent history as it is unfolding. As a boomer, your comments have given me pause to reflect upon my own attitudes and preparedness to adjust them, not an easy exercise for anyone.
However, firstly, you rightly decry the adverse affects that have occurred under democracy and suggest that a Maori worldview would have achieved better outcomes. You seem to be advocating an alternative to one man one vote democracy to be replaced with 'consensus' democracy. But, is this still democracy?
Consensus requires a willingness to listen respectively to others and a preparedness to compromise for the greater good. This attitude is anathema in todays' societies where cancel culture, deplatforming, intolerance of others' views are entrenched.
Witnessing the recent historical and acrimonious spat between Tainui and Ngati Whatua does not provide confidence that consensus is a mainstay in Te Ao Maori. Ngawera - Packer and Waititi never espouse a vision of consensus, co-governance. They seem to seethe in anger, wallow in victimhood and eschew everything that has a coloniser's taint. I can't see them sitting at the table with other parties striving for consensus.
Lastly, I was disappointed that you invoked Willie Jackson's use of the word "tyranny" when describing democracy. What comparative word would you use to describe Nazism?

Loz said...

Electors threw out Labour in 1990 because the government shackled the country with neoliberalism that was never asked for and deeply hated. National’s campaign railed against neoliberalism, and we ended up with more of the same. We even threw out the electoral system in anger that our politicians wouldn’t honour their mandates. Democracy didn’t bring us neoliberalism; it was the abandonment of Democracy that did.

Horizon's Polling for the last election suggested the 10 most important issues to kiwis were:

Health 57%
Affordable housing 49%
Overall quality of life 40%
Environment 40%
Education 39%
Social Issues 35%
Housing Supply 34%
Crime 32%
Personal Income 32%
Law and Order 32%

It's hard to see which of the pivotal issues Labour can claim it's delivering on. For decades now, New Zealander's voting has been unable to assert any influence on the material issues the population are concerned about.

The country has the worst balance of payments deficit since records began. Hospital waiting lists are worst now than any time in New Zealand's history. The country is ranked as the 6th least affordable in the world for purchasing a property. In literacy and mathematics NZ performs below average for OECD countries. 40% of New Zealand's share market is now directly owned by foreign investors. Government debt is the highest on record as is household debt during this government’s term.

Not to forget that as the western world's economies rush toward an enormous international crisis, and with AI / ChatGPT poised to wipe away huge numbers of our white-collar jobs we have a government aligning the nation with US interests in developing hostilities with our largest trading partner.

Suggestions that yet another neoliberal government under Labour, the Greens, and Te Pati Maori will be "equal to the challenges of an uncertain and demanding future" seems to be as much fantasy as promising apartheid government as the answer to the country's woes.

John Hurley said...

Loss of power will be a new experience for us. As the second great wave of colonisation washes over us, our best chance of survival will be to reach out for the hands of the tangata whenua – whose feet are sunk deepest in the earth of Aotearoa.
......

No it's just back to landed gentry.
Years ago my friend told Mark Solomon he couldn't park his car on the Victoria Square bus stop. He replied: "we own the South Island".

So there (bigot)!

John Hurley said...

New Zealanders have every right to be alarmed by these straws in the political wind. The Court of Appeal's 2003 decision had the very real potential to see huge swaths of the nation's public beaches transferred into what, in effect, would have been private ownership.

Under our legal system, Maori tribal entities enjoy the same rights as any other form of collective body – be it an incorporated society, a trade union or a private or public company. As "legal persons", they can acquire and dispose of property as they see fit.

As a gesture of goodwill, such legal persons may afford the general public ready access to their property. But if, for whatever reason, they decide to restrict the public's access, there is nothing the latter can do about it.

The Labour-led Government's decision to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Act represented their determination to ensure that our beaches remained the common property of all New Zealanders. It had long been held that the Crown's ownership of the foreshore and seabed was "settled law", which is why the Court of Appeal's upholding of the Maori appellants' claim to exercise "customary title" came as such a bombshell.

Michael Cullen's legislation was, in effect, a renationalisation of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of the whole nation – Maori and Pakeha.

The Maori Party, the ACT Party, and (to their shame) the Greens, in calling for the act's repeal, are, in reality, calling for the privatisation of large parts of the New Zealand coastline.

Should Mr Key's latest outreach to some of the most strident advocates of Maori nationalism, therefore, be read as a coded signal to their supporters that National is now ready to join them in privatising the foreshore and seabed?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/258693/I-Seabed-makes-odd-bedmates-I

Cara said...

Chris is playing devil’s advocate here in suggesting that an up-and-coming generation could ‘change the game’ by overturning the fundamentals of Western democracy. If this were likely we would expect to see a consistent trend towards the left (right) of centre parties among younger (older) voters.
I have been looking at the breakdown of voting intentions by age published in the latest Roy Morgan poll. While it reveals that Green Party supporters tend to be in the younger age group (18-49), the same is not true for Labour supporters, in fact older women (50+) make up the greater proportion of women supporting Labour.
Similarly, while older men make up the greater proportion of men supporting the right of centre, the same is not true for right-supporting women, in fact younger women make up a slightly greater proportion of women supporting Act. In this poll, both women and men narrowly favour a National-Act coalition.

LARRY N MITCHELL said...


In the several years Chris that I have been reading BB, this piece deserves a special place.

It is the sort of seminal original truth-telling that will deeply startle, possibly enrage some but is to be hoped that the argument's wit and wisdom will prevail.

To put the complexities of our Kiwi dilemma so clearly does us all a great service.

Thank You.

David George said...

Thanks Chris, I'm not convinced that a recitation of the perceived "failures" under democracy is helpful in this case, especially without non democratic/tribalist/ethno state examples as a control.

The blatant lies and vilification of any questioning of the co-governance agenda are screaming: "look the hell out"

Gary Peters said...

I'm surprised my comment didn't make the cut.

Honesty is something to be proud of, such a shame that labour don't prise it that much.

Chris Trotter said...

To: Gary Peters.

Quite simple, Gary, your comment was defamatory.

D'Esterre said...

Shane McDowall: "I wonder if the Hobson's Pledge supporters object to Ireland being called Eire, or Wales being called Cymru ?"

Éire is the ancient name for Ireland, as Cymru is for Wales.

Aotearoa isn't the ancient name for NZ. Were that the case, it would have been used in the Treaty. It wasn't. The indigenes had no name for this country, hence use of the transliteration "Niu (or Nu) Tirani" in the Maori version. Any claims as to "Aotearoa"'s ancient provenance are just revisionism.

Once upon a time, I wouldn't have cared if a section of the populace wanted to use "Aotearoa". However. It now comes freighted with an unwelcome dose of ethno-nationalism, an aspect of fascism. You-know-who would have instantly recognized it.

We need that sort of thinking in NZ like we need toothache, as the saying goes.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

D'Esterre. One of the earliest names for New Zealand was Maoriland. I presume then you'd be okay with that?

D'Esterre said...

Maoriland wasn't used in the Treaty. So it obviously wasn't in general use at that stage.

The issue with "Aotearoa" is the revisionism now surrounding it. Advocates for that name appeal to its ancient usage as a name for NZ. That simply isn't so. Prior to the arrival of the first western explorers, the indigenes had no conception of NZ as a polity. Hence no name for it.

I have made clear that it's the unwelcome side order of ethno-nationalism, with which "Aotearoa" is freighted, to which I take exception. Not so much to the name itself, about which I don't care particularly. But it shouldn't be adopted unless NZ citizens give it the say-so via referendum.

D'Esterre said...

Mark Simpson: "....an alternative to one man one vote democracy to be replaced with 'consensus' democracy. But, is this still democracy?"

No. It isn't. One person one vote is the sine qua non of democracy. Without it, whatever remains certainly cannot be characterised as democracy. In this case, it would be fascism, of which ethno-nationalism is a facet.

The rule of law could not function as it currently does, either.

"....does not provide confidence that consensus is a mainstay in Te Ao Maori."

Some years back, there was a post online in which the author claimed that conciliation and consent were Maori values. A family member had at that time been researching the documented oral history of pre-European Maori habitation and conflict in the Auckland area. Having read the post, said family member remarked that conciliation and consent were not Maori values. Hongi Hika would have been very surprised to hear that they were. Likewise Te Kawau of Ngati Whatua. Prior to first European contact, NZ wasn’t a bucolic paradise: it was Hobbesian. Tribes were ruled by hereditary elites; slavery was the norm. Inter-tribal conflict was frequent and violent, cannibalism routinely practised. The environment in which such values could have developed and flourished did not exist. Cultural values run deep and die hard, as the saying goes.

Citizens who would know what co-governance will look like, need only observe what's happening currently in te Urewera national park. Another example from some years back is the Pencarrow lakes here in Wellington. Public access to the lakes was abruptly cut off: then Treaty minister, Chris Finlayson, was obliged to step in, to restore access. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't happened at te Urewera.

"Ngawera - Packer and Waititi never espouse a vision of consensus, co-governance. They seem to seethe in anger, wallow in victimhood and eschew everything that has a coloniser's taint."

Yes indeed. Their attitude is an indication of what lies ahead, if this country is so foolhardy as to go down the co-governance path.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Maoriland wasn't used in the Treaty. So it obviously wasn't in general use at that stage."

Doesn't necessarily follow. But even so – so what? Someone tried to change the name in the late 19th century but it didn't get through Parliament – pity. But I really can't understand the fiercely emotional reaction to Aotearoa. All right it was never really used by Mari that much until quite late but it's a nice mellifluous name, speaks to me a damn sight more than someplace in the Netherlands – speaks to my wife just the same even though she's Dutch. But there's some visceral hatred towards it because apparently we having "Maori stuff" shoved down our throats. I can't help but find this petty and pathetic.

"https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300456239/lake-waikaremoana-and-its-great-walk-have-been-closed-for-months-as-thoe-say-the-relationship-with-the-crown-has-failed"

"Citizens who would know what co-governance will look like, need only observe what's happening currently in te Urewera national park."

You mean this? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Many tourists have a really favourable impression of NZ before they get here. I'd hate to see them become cynical after they leave. Which they will do if we don't have decent facilities for them, and if we keep poisoning our land and rivers.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300456239/lake-waikaremoana-and-its-great-walk-have-been-closed-for-months-as-thoe-say-the-relationship-with-the-crown-has-failed