 |
| Warning Shot: The former Māori Development Minister, Willie Jackson, predicted civil unrest on a scale “five times, ten times” worse than the 1981 Springbok Tour protests if the Act Party’s referendum on Te Tiriti O Waitangi goes ahead. |
“CONSEQUENCES” – it’s a word that acquires an ominous quality in the mouths of political radicals. As in: “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from its consequences. Or, as Te Pāti Māori’s Debbie Ngarewa Packer expressed it, when asked what would happen if the Act Party secured its referendum on Te Tiriti from its new coalition partners: “We have always said there will be consequences.”
In both contexts the word is freighted with menace. It is impossible to miss the threat which the word is now required to bear. What the political radical is saying to the person about to avail herself of what is perhaps the most fundamental of all human rights is chilling.
“Of course you can speak out on this issue, but you are surely not so naïve as to believe that your little speech will be the end of it. Giving voice to such opinions cannot help but leave a very black mark on your record. It’s the sort of thing that goes down in an employee’s personal file. Your chances of promotion may be limited very seriously by giving voice to such views. Still, it’s entirely up to you. Just remember, though, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from its consequences.”
If you were a public servant harbouring serious doubts about the wisdom of enshrining “decolonisation” and “indigenisation” at the top of your ministry’s priorities, and you had let it be known that it was your intention to speak out against the idea at the next staff training day, and your supervisor delivered that not-so-subtle warning to you the night before, would you go ahead with your plan? Or would the consequences of going ahead with your “little speech” cause you to scrap the whole idea?
Are we really free to express ourselves if, by doing so, we place our livelihood, our entire future career, at risk? If that’s what’s at stake, then doesn’t the exercise of our freedom of expression take on a fraught, almost existential, character? Like the German citizen of the Third Reich who, in obedience to his Christian faith, conceals a Jewish family in his attic. Simply by showing compassion for his fellow human-beings, that man is risking arrest, imprisonment and death. When those are the outcomes of displaying human compassion; of obeying the Christian injunction to “love thy neighbour”; is it not reasonable to suppose that the exercise of love and compassion will diminish?
Attaching dire consequences to any aspect of human behaviour must be seen as a means of reducing or eliminating that behaviour. If speaking out against “decolonisation” and “indigenisation” in a government ministry could cost the speaker their career, then the chances of it happening will be reduced dramatically. A climate of fear and compliance will be created in which the only safe speech is that which conforms to the policies and plans of the people in charge. The language of consequences all-too-easily shades into the language of totalitarianism.
It is difficult to attribute anything other than an intention to intimidate the incoming government to Debbie Ngarewa Packer’s statement to RNZ. Or to Willie Jackson’s comments to Jack Tame on TVNZ’s Q+A current affairs programme. The former Māori Development Minister predicted civil unrest on a scale “five times, ten times” worse than the 1981 Springbok Tour protests if the Act Party’s referendum goes ahead. Both politicians are laying out the consequences of a coalition partner making it possible for citizens to cast a vote on the role and scope of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. It is suggested that massive civil disturbances – quite possibly violent in nature – will be the result if this classically democratic mechanism is employed to resolve significant differences in the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Compare the response of these two Māori nationalists with those of the people who opposed the introduction of proportional representation, assisted dying, and decriminalisation of cannabis. Did the “anti” side of these debates, or the “pro” side for that matter, threaten massive civil disturbances if their will was thwarted by the democratic process? No, they did not, because the referendum is generally acknowledged by all those who adhere to the democratic values of New Zealand society to be the best method of resolving controversial issues rationally and peacefully.
What other conclusion can be drawn from the statements of Debbie Ngarewa Packer and Willie Jackson, except that they reject the principle of majority rule that underpins the entire democratic system of government. And, if that is true, then New Zealanders will find it difficult to resist the conclusion that these two politicians’ preference, and the preference of the Māori nationalist movement generally, is for a system of government that accords the right of veto to a minority of the population.
Because, what else is being demanded here but the right to prevent certain political policies from being implemented? Not by virtue of winning an election fought, at least in part, on the political policies in dispute, Not by winning a referendum called to determine, finally, which course of action should be followed. But by warning of the consequences of allowing the offending policy to be implemented over the minority’s objections. Or, in the language of the mafioso enforcer: “Nice little country you’ve got here, it would be a real shame if something happened to turn it into a hell-hole of civil strife.”
How, then, should the incoming government respond to this threat of consequences? The largest party of the coalition currently in formation, National, has rejected Act’s policy of a Treaty referendum as “divisive and unhelpful”. But this is nonsense. A great many of the policies espoused by National, Act and NZ First are “divisive and unhelpful” – not least their pledge to abolish Fair Pay Agreements. But, the fact that a great many people are opposed to National-Act-NZ First policies will not prevent them from being implemented. It’s one of the principal reasons for holding democratic elections, to provide governments with the mandate needed to proceed with their policies over the objections of the opposition. The question, therefore, is not whether Act’s policy is “divisive and unhelpful”, but whether it is justified.
And, if it is justified, then the incoming government must decide how to respond to the threatened consequences of allowing Act’s referendum to be put before the people. The answer to this question is as clear as it is daunting: no government can allow its conduct of national affairs to be determined by threats of massive civil disturbance and/or political violence.
Successfully applied once, the minority’s consequences – its veto – will be applied again, and again, and again, until the political will of the majority has been set at nought. Either that, or, unwilling to be ruled by the minority, the majority will develop a sequence of consequences intended to secure results considerably more to their liking.
This essay was originally posted on the Democracy Project website on Monday, 6 November 2023.
18 comments:
The thing is Te Tiriti te iwi is all just a bad idea "in 21st Century New Zealand". It is just a tool the left wants to use to push us towards "a new New Zealand (Aotearoa in fact)". The people who think like that are those who look at our history as shockingly oppressive.
People such as Jamie [Something] the Woke Jester
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqAfQd4w_Xk&t=4s
That the very people envisioning themselves as the wielders of disproportionate power are threatening violence and mayhem should surprise no one.
“The only time no ever means no in the absence of [the threat of] violence is when it is uttered by one civilized person to another.”
― Jordan B. Peterson
Your most insightful... even " profound" reflection on our Society... yet Chris.
For my humble part in this, we should call their ... bluff?
Our basic rights of freedom of thought, democracy and free speech are at issue.
Let's therefore Do This *** and be done with it.
*** A referendum if necessary or just an exercise of majority democratic government OK ?
https://plainsight.nz/the-day-insideout-came-to-the-ministry-of-transport/
And for those who doubt there aren’t consequences for “wrong think” in the public service read Emma’s story. It’s about questioning gender orthodoxy at the Ministry of Transport
The disquiet amongst some Maori, with talk of a Treaty discussion and possible referendum, has been brought to light by the very people who don't wish to have a bah of any such referendum. It wasn't Seymour but the deceitful way three waters and co governance was introduced by the likes of Willie Jackson and other Maori academics who had power behind the scenes in this last Labour government. These are the people who have had their dreams shattered by the losing of the election and the loss of popularity for these policies. Seymour fears that a continuation down the co governance path can be stopped by questioning the validity of the treaty and the Maori pushing these policies, fear not only losing the initiative, but actually losing ground on what they see as good progress to a better outcome for Maori. They may be right but they have brought it on themselves. The threat of social unrest and disobedience is the last ditched effort of a few to rally Maori and fight this so called injustice. The fact is that the majority rule is their problem if there were to be a referendum, and so to them the majority must not rule. Luxon will see the outcome if he is smart and make sure a referendum never happens. That leaves us all with the ongoing different interpretations of the Treaty, and it will resurface again when Maori try to out manoeuvre the majority on anything.
Perhaps a referendum based on the Treaty interpretations and co-governance wishes of Waititi, Jackson & Co would be more acceptable, less inclined to bring out the ethno nationalist mobs.
How about: Maori have inalienable rights of governance in perpetuity over the water, earth and sky and over all issues of a political, social, medical, educational, economic and legal nature in Aotearoa. Yes or No?
Part One -
I find few topics as frustrating as the Treaty on this blog. Most contributors, including our host, have reasonable education that formally ended by the late '70s. Interest and continued self-education has led to most being well-read on many issues, but this is self-selected literature. Political, legal, cultural and social developments have been analyzed through that early lens. Issues such as the Treaty have suffered the prejudice of views frozen in time and re-enforced by others which have similar views retarded by age and bias. These have become dangerously intransigent despite being repeatedly shown to be outdated and simply wrong.
I have stated in a previous thread that ToW is an international treaty. This was subjected to derision, but the most any other contributor could say is that it is a legal nullity (essentially a view not only over-turned by the courts in 1986, but one that was not up-held throughout the 20th Century). I will repeat for clarity, ToW is a bilateral treaty.
It seems that those that have held intransigent views do not have this as a starting point. Because of this there is a failure to understand that as a bilateral agreement, the NZ judiciary (upheld by the British Privy Council when our highest court) have been about enforcing the Crown side of the Treaty and the obligations. We have the Waitangi Tribunal as a disputes mechanism for the indigenous signatory to bring grievance as to the Crown obligation, and this acts as advisory to the Crown. The legislator had weighed judicial interpretations and tries to ensure that legislation and institutions are in compliance. I will repeat for clarity, the Crown judicial and legislative wings are about upholding the Crown obligations under a bilateral agreement.
Those intransigents counter this by deciding they have greater knowledge on jurisprudence that the NZ judiciary (and previously British Law Lords). They look to the Tribunal and decide they know more that the appointed leading historians, the lawyers and those that hold the cultural knowledge and history of their people. This is evident of the right wing trend to decry experts and attempt to replace facts and peer review with populism.
Part Two -
This is equal measures of arrogance and ignorance. It also shows a complete refusal to understand the views of others and the basis for this. Importantly for this issue is the understanding of Maori in relation to te Tiriti. In this it is very much seen as a bilateral agreement that has empowered the foundation of Crown authority over the migrant society through Parliament. It is difficult for the intransigents to accept that Parliament derives foundational authority from te Tiriti and that the descendants of the other signatories have been unwavering in the view that they are an unconquered people and the NZ government operates under agreement. There is little doubt that those descendants are realistic in that the NZ parliament actually operates as the government of NZ, and look to this government and the international institutes to protect their interests as enshrined in Te Tiriti.
The ACT referendum, like Brexit, seeks to have 50% + 1 of a voter turn out over turn 180 years of jurisprudence and understanding. More so, TWexit would unilaterally extinguish the status of the other signatory. This severely changes the basis of Parliament from rule by agreement to that of imposition, which could reasonably be seen as conquest. Yet Chris is outraged by Maori leaders suggesting that there would be 'consequences'. Those defending their people are portrayed as (paraphrasing) uppity.
The ACT party agenda is to organize around ignorance. The intellectually intransient, the out-right ignorant and the extreme prejudiced to use misguided populism because they cannot win their views on merit. This will cause chaos and division, and the ACT right will roll in it like a pig in mud.
I think you will find that more than just a few Maori leaders will be seeking consequences, all constitutionalist, all those with a sense of social justice and those that have respected the blue-print of NZ has been through agreement will seek consequences. What ACT proposes is no less than a populist coup.
Did sneaky Willie Jackson seriously think he was going sneak in minority rule and everything would be ka pai?
Given the blank cheque Ardern gave him, clearly he did in his race obsessed shadowy world but the fact was once He Puapua was leaked by someone in Labour more than concerned enough to think what was being hidden from the public was dangerous, all it was going to take was one government party to demand an end to it.
Of course Luxon is scared of dealing with this festering sore, he was probably blissfully unaware or simply, like most politicians, buried his head in the sand and Luxon looks exactly like a guy who will avoid unpleasantness.
Willie Jacksons time on Radio Live was routinely filled with his dislike of Labour, but he obviously saw it as the best vehicle to get what he wanted, better to be on the inside whilst dismantling democracy than powerless outside. That Jacinda Ardern became leader was a gift from the gods as far as Willie was concerned and he made hay whilst the sun shone. Her total laissez faire management style was perfect, no oversight, no resistance.
But somehow he completely lost touch with reality. Does he seriously think a tribal elite running NZ will succeed? Does he really think NZ will carry on functioning as per now but with race based tribal governance? And does he seriously think threatening violence to overthrow democracy is even vaguely real? Or just ever so slightly criminal?
Its well overdue that the one individual who did more than any other to destroy the Labour Party was shown the door in Wellington to join his party within a party colleagues also cast out by the voters.
Thanks The "how to win friends and influence people" Barron.
I may well be "retarded by age and bias" but there are plenty of competent, clear thinking Kiwis deeply concerned with where "The Treaty Principles" are taking us.
Dame Anne Salmond: “it is the 1987 neoliberal rewriting of the Treaty of Waitangi as a
‘partnership between races’ that lies at the heart of current difficulties in reconciling Te Tiriti with democratic principles, not the original text.”
“Sir Robin Cooke’s rewriting of Te Tiriti as a binary ‘partnership between races’ has been
interpreted as requiring a split in kāwanatanga, or governance at the national level. The division of populations into ‘races,’ however, is a colonial artefact that cuts across whakapapa and is scientifically obsolete. It is not a sound basis for constitutional
arrangements in the 21st century. In these complex, challenging times, leaders need an acute sense of justice and fair play, and how this is understood by different groups in our small, intimate society.
The exchange of promises in Te Tiriti requires fair and equal ways of living in which indigenous tikanga are respected, and ordinary persons, as well as rangatira and hapū, have tino rangatiratanga. At present, as the inequities within and among different groups increase, we are heading in the opposite direction.”
"intellectually intransient, the out-right ignorant and the extreme prejudiced"?
Of course the obvious departure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights insistence
that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status" is conveniently and completely ignored.
To: The Barron.
"Issues such as the Treaty have suffered the prejudice of views frozen in time and re-enforced by others which have similar views retarded by age and bias. These have become dangerously intransigent despite being repeatedly shown to be outdated and simply wrong."
A situation, TB, that you clearly find deplorable - initiated and perpetuated by people you would no doubt describe as "deplorables".
And, most deplorably: every single one of these "deplorables" has a vote.
How you must be longing, TB, for that state of affairs which, sadly, and so far, has never made it into existence. A world in which the foolish are outnumbered by the wise.
Retarded though my view may be by age and bias, something tells me you'll be waiting for this world to arrive for quite a while yet.
Response Part One:
"I think my rhetoric brings people together," he [Trump] said last year, four days after a 21-year-old allegedly posted an anti-immigrant screed online and then allegedly opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 and injuring dozens of others.
But a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 54 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault.
After a Latino gas station attendant in Gainesville, Florida, was suddenly punched in the head by a white man, the victim could be heard on surveillance camera recounting the attacker’s own words: “He said, ‘This is for Trump.'"" - ABC News 2020
Those marching in Charlottesville, chanting threats of racial violence with burning crosses and tiki torches, killing a counter-protestor by driving a car into the citizenry - I deplore this.
Attempted insurrection, destruction of the Nations capital, disruption of lawful proceedings - I deplore.
Driving a rivals campaign bus off the road - I deplore.
Attack on women's reproductive rights to the extent of restricting and lambasting a 10 year old rape victim - I deplore.
Attacking the Black Rights Matters movement to the extent of naturalizing the murder of protesters - I deplore
Chasing the parents of children massacred in gun violence suggesting they are fake - I deplore
Racist attacks, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism anti migrants - I deplore
Stigmatization and the claim of the right to limit the rights of people over sexual orientation - I deplore
Attacking those that express gender identity and targeting vulnerable children and their health care in regard to gendered identity - I deplore
I could go on. You paraphrased the term "deplorables" into my post. There is much to deplore about those labeled by Hillary Clinton. Extrapolating to NZ, Chris seems to suggest that those motivated by prejudice and racism should be able to over-turn jurisprudence on bilateral agreements and minority rights. That is a situation I deplore.
I am sure that if it fits your political ends, deplorables may be seen as electoral adorables, but I am more principled. I would not associate with a political scheme that is to divide the working class through racial prejudice and manufactured jealousy. I am secure in my place in NZ and the place of the Treaty in the legislative and institution development of my nation. It is the respect of our founding, and is the logical way of addressing inequity. I deplore those that chooses this issue to enforce their privileges in society, and to maintain socio-economic disadvantage. To keep Maori in their place.
Response Part Two:
David: Always respect the research you do on issues discussed. However, this is an example of the way debate has been debased. Rather than looking at the entire and recent developments as to the issue, isolated statements can be taken out of time and context. I acknowledge that you have gone to two people that do have relevant expertise. Others do not and shop for any obscure commentator to back their position. Ultimately, the legal and historical expertise is dumbed down. It is also a trick to place your own interpretation over rights based documents and claim that the empowered are really the ones discriminated against. This is nonsense, and implementation of the Treaty and principles does not breach the Declaration of Human Rights.
Back to Chris: I have compared this to Brexit (TWexit), but it goes deeper than simply trying to get 50%+1. Democratic principles have developed alongside universal human rights. Tyranny of the majority has been curtailed in recognition that turning democracy into mob rule may lead to 'consequences'. This has done and the victims have been the most vulnerable. The strength of a principled democratic society is how it protects the rights of the minorities.
We then look at whether Parliament should be interfering with an independent judiciary on constitutional interpretation. I used the term 'populist coup' above. This is because ACT and their supporters know they cannot get their way in NZ jurisprudence and through the courts. There is no respect for the independent legal expertise within out current constitutional arrangement. This is a direct attempt to neutralize the rule of law.
Then the final cookie in the jar - can Parliament unilaterally over-turn a bilateral agreement? The Treaty pre-dates our Parliament and is argued as the document that settler society were able to establish governing arrangements. This is likely to be challenged in both domestic and international courts.
The Foreshore and Sea Bed was about a right recognized by the courts, but had not been available to Maori. This caused social and political disharmony. What we are taking about here is removing existing rights. Maori and allies have fought generationally to establish those rights, and continue to advocate future rights. As with the abortion law in the USA, when rights are removed it radicalizes the issue far greater. I can assure you, I have not met Maori that want their grandchildren to have less rights than their grandparents. 'Consequences' seems mild language.
The other side of the coin is that there are those that have protested many Governments in the past and analyzed those that came before. Whether Massey's Cossacks, the '51 lockout or the '81 tour we have had reactive Governments that have treated the rights of people with contempt. Many are now hoping that a new Government goes further than those previous and target Maori (before they target all other rights). Protest and resistance must be expected. History will judge those on each side.
@ The Barron
The essential point of ACT's referendum seems to me to be it's definition. It is an extremely simple and brief document that in itself makes no attempt to adjudicate the issues of our modern world of 2023. The interpretations being put on it now vastly exceed
what the text can possibly deal with and the "principles" which we are now asking it to advise are way beyond it's scope and hence are subject to endless imaginative reassessment. We don't have to relegate it to an historical curiosity as we did for all the time of NZ self government until the 1980's legislation of the Stat Owned Enterprises act. But we do need to define what it means in the present time.
D J S
David S - What the ACT referendum is about is removing judicial independence. They did this with mandatory sentences and three strikes. They do not value the expertise and position of the judiciary as independent and , hopefully, incorruptible judicators. In this issue, they are trying to use a slim majority of turnout to force the judiciary into a differing interpretation of the Crown obligations under a bilateral agreement than jurisprudence has established.
In brief, they are using a referendum to force Parliament to instruct the justice wing of out government to reinterpret a bilateral agreement and obligations differently than that they have decided on the actual law and within the rule of law.
Remembering, this is a bilateral document binding the Crown. ACT are wanting to limit the independent judiciary from exercising judicial judgement in order not to recognize jurisprudence. Justice is no longer blind, but is directed to show bias against the indigenous minority.
It is a populist coup and constitutional affront to a democratic society.
The brainless, unintelligent and ossified people in power in NZ/AO have no ability to introduce useful policies that deal to Maori discontent. And people writing here are just thinking up reasons for doing nothing. Criticisng Maori in powerful positions is hypocritical;they have advanced themselves by learning the Pakeha system of government and its tricks.
Out of the fog may step an estimable figure but in the mean-time the Parties hang back waiting for something urgent to come - another Covid? They don't want to commit to a path leading away from some well-paid emolument in business such as Jenny Shipley found. And with luck they won't get wrong-footed. So they think 'Keep that Maori thing at arm's length and hope the Maori leaders threatening will set everyone at each other's throats'. Can Maori practise statesmanship and resile from headline uttterances? They have had great leaders in the past; perhaps loose-lipped larries today feel they can win with a public that gets excited about films featuring Barbie dolls. We have achieved Maori wards after decades, so we can move.
But bringing in some sensible and needed legislation for Maori advancement may be beyond these clever posers. We haven't been able to bring in much wanted death-by-choice legislation sensibly framed. It would have been so wise, carefully drawn up with consultation, introduced as a pilot. No wonder pollies were keen on driverless cars, the people can't be trusted to think, do anything right. Trouble is pollies judge by looking at themselves, and most are not just a sandwich short of a picnic, they have nothing to bring to the table at all.
@ The Barron again
The government and the judiciary are not rival authorities. The government has the responsibility of making the law and modifying it from time to time as necessary. The Judiciary.s function is to make judgments as to whether that law is followed correctly . If the government believes that the way the law is being interpreted by the judiciary is not how the government intended the law to work the government has the responsibility to alter that law so that clarifies the intent.
The government is always the government.
Cheers D J S
I would just be repeating what I have put in the next thread. The government is subject to the application of the law from Runnemede to yesterday's British Supreme Court.
The Government cannot unilaterally legislate alternation to bilateral or international agreements and should not infringe customary rights, natural rights and common law.
Post a Comment