HAVING WOOED THE WORLD’s investors, what, if anything, has New Zealand won? Did Christopher Luxon’s guests board their private jets fizzing with enthusiasm for a little country palpably eager to embark on a new national adventure? Or, did they depart in a more sombre mood, disappointed by New Zealanders’ lack of spirit? Will institutions with billions of dollars at their disposal invest them in a country so obviously in a deep funk?
Or will they, like Michael Corleone in Godfather Part II, take note of more than the sales pitch of the gangster asking him to invest in the Mob’s Cuban casinos in 1959?
MICHAEL CORLEONE: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren’t.
HYMAN ROTH: What does that tell you?
MICHAEL CORLEONE: They could win.
It’s a safe bet that the real global investment community pays at least as much attention to what’s happening inside the countries asking for their money as the fictional Michael Corleone. After all, they pay a great deal of money to secure the most accurate and up-to-date information about their hosts. Not just the raw economic data, but information concerning the general disposition of the nation. Not only about the mood of the men and women seated around the boardroom table, but also about the mood of the men and women thronging the streets below.
Interviewed on Radio New Zealand, Tainui strongman, Tukoroirangi Morgan, boasted that he had told the global investors not to waste their time talking to the Crown, but to approach directly the iwi engaged in growing the Māori economy.
It’s a safe bet that the real global investment community pays at least as much attention to what’s happening inside the countries asking for their money as the fictional Michael Corleone. After all, they pay a great deal of money to secure the most accurate and up-to-date information about their hosts. Not just the raw economic data, but information concerning the general disposition of the nation. Not only about the mood of the men and women seated around the boardroom table, but also about the mood of the men and women thronging the streets below.
Interviewed on Radio New Zealand, Tainui strongman, Tukoroirangi Morgan, boasted that he had told the global investors not to waste their time talking to the Crown, but to approach directly the iwi engaged in growing the Māori economy.
Though he gave it his best shot, Christopher Luxon’s pitch to the assembled global investors is unlikely to have resonated as loudly as Morgan’s. New Zealand’s prime minister, as they would have been well aware, leads a state whose outgoings far exceed its incomings, and a beleaguered government desperate for economic growth. All the corporate jargon in the world cannot disguise the brute fact of Luxon’s political need.
By contrast, Morgan and the many other iwi leaders presiding over the burgeoning Māori economy, would likely have struck Luxon’s guests as loud, proud, and hungry for the capital needed to keep their tribal enterprises growing. Māori businesspeople are not begging to be bailed out, they are asking to be built up. Because, as they were no doubt quick to remind these trillion-dollar tauiwi, the only place tangata whenua can succeed is right here. They have to win.
Were Luxon’s guests able to travel back in time 150 years they would have encountered Pakeha with almost as much skin in the burgeoning enterprise of “New Zealand” as the Māori of today.
These were immigrants who had travelled 16,000 miles, leaving behind everyone and everything they had known, and betting all they had on their ability to wrest a future from these distant islands. And what would have impressed today’s big investors – just as it did the big, mostly British, investors of the Nineteenth century – was how much these settlers were willing to wager on the proposition that New Zealand had a future, and how confident they were of winning the bet.
That confidence was crucial to securing the capital investment necessary to make a nation. Fortunately for the colonisers of New Zealand, the Nineteenth Century was awash with confidence.
In his book “Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World, 1783-1939” (Oxford, 2009) the New Zealand historian James Belich examines the extraordinary racial confidence that fuelled and underpinned the breakneck economic development, demographic conquest, and cultural domination of North America and Australasia:
“Though somewhat unmilitary, they were dangerous people, especially when in full-frothing boom frenzy. When they had the help of their trusty oldlands, as well as massive boom time numbers and the fanatical ideology of the colonising crusade, hardly anything could stop them. They destroyed, crippled, swamped, or marginalised most of the numerous societies they encountered. They also built new societies faster than anyone had ever done before.”
Certainly, it is hard to argue with that final sentence. In the century that followed the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the Pakeha population of New Zealand exploded from around 2,000 to nearly 2,000,000. The four main centres grew from a few hastily erected wooden structures to substantial cities of stone and brick. Railways and roads linked rural villages and provincial towns to the major ports. Industries grew and flourished.
The cultures and politics of Belich’s “Anglo-World” were shaped by what he identifies as the boom-bust-recolonisation phases that first created and then consolidated it.
In this regard, the history of New Zealand conforms very neatly to Belich’s template. First came the great investor-fuelled rush for land and resources; drawing in tens-of-thousands of immigrants and driving off the Māori tribes. This initial speculative and extractive economic boom was succeeded by a period of contraction and retrenchment – the “bust” – which was followed by a second, much less anarchic, surge of immigration and investment – both prompted by the nation-defining technological innovation of refrigeration.
The question to be decided by Luxon’s guests is whether or not Belich’s three phases are still driving the economic and social history of New Zealand, and, if they are, which phase is the country going through in 2025 – boom, bust, or recolonisation?
It is difficult to sustain the argument that New Zealand is in the middle of a boom. In terms of metrics and mood the nation would appear to be situated squarely in the middle of a bust. Equally difficult to sustain is the argument that New Zealand is now, or ever likely to be again, driven by the “fanatical ideology of the colonising crusade” which underpinned its first 100 years. Booms seldom follow the mass emigration of the dominant culture’s best and brightest. Nor are the chances high that Mother England, or even Uncle Sam, will come to the rescue of the Anglo-World’s most remote outpost. Only in te Ao Māori is the cultural confidence of which booms are made on display.
What does that tell us? What should it tell the world’s big investors? Possibly, that the best returns are likely to come from backing the most daring and innovative sectors of the fast-growing Māori economy.
They could win.
This essay was originally posted on the Interest.co.nz website on Monday, 17 March 2025.
20 comments:
Turn your argument around and apply it to 1950s Algerie Francaise. Who there had ‘the advantage ‘ of ‘dynamism’ and overseas money?
It was the Pieds Noirs, in their minds, until De Gaulle who ( in the end) could count, made them see.
Your argument fails.
As a Man of the Left, you must have seen ‘The Battle of Algiers’. Do not encourage folly. Don't mistake skin colour, ‘nativism’, or ahistorical propaganda for numbers.
How can you make such an error? Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
At the beginning of the Great War, enthusiastic females, especially London, ran about pressing white feathers on young and not so young men not in uniform, early virtue signalling of a most repellent kind.
You see this a bit in old people and those never ever going to be called to arms, roaring for more war in Ukraine. Your words increase division, edge toes closer to the cliff. Dont say ‘Boo’ in such a scene. This isn’t a morality tale and more of this you could regret saying, one day.
It is for those who can feel regret, and honor decency, and know something of history, to choose carefully.
What is this ‘Anglo’ you speak of? Is this akin to the fool Carney in Canada who says Canada is ‘European’. What an ass he is.
Speaking of asses, no one in NZ is ‘European’ unless born there or has a bidet at home. Ditto ‘Anglo’.
Chris does cite his source as Belich's book. Jamie Belich is in charge "Imperial and Commonwealth Studies" at Oxford. Belich is one of a number, indeed a majority, of historians that look at the second half of the 19th century colonialism as a web of economic, migration and development in Britain (inc. Ireland), Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and NZ. This was referred as the Anglo-sphere,because of language and influence, although economically Argentina was also in the sphere (Britain dominated the economy). Money and people moved between these lands.
I am unsure why you apply this model to France and Algeria, and advance in to a 1966 movie to criticize the argument.
As for Carney, he has been governor of both the reserve bank of Canada and the bank of England, he is now Prime Minister of Canada. Throughout his illustrious career, I am sure he has had detractors, but you maybe the first you call him a "fool".
About all Morgan's loud mouthed boasting will do is tell investors to stay well away from this land because it is constitutionally unstable.
Given Morgan and the other strutting dickheads that make up Maori activism broadcast is they don't give a shit about rules or laws. And that is exactly the kind of environment investors do NOT want to entertain.
And Luxon carrys on pretending there's nothing you see here. What an incredibly pointless futile waste of space he is!
Rather a rosy picture of New Zealand's colonisation from the 1800s. Not inaccurate, precisely, more... selective. One might also take the view of New Zealand's growth a litany of graft, double dealing, fraud, theft, and property speculation (whilst axes and ploughshares were left rusting on the beach), all of which came within an ace of sinking the settlements' economies before they got properly started.
If Maori have hit their straps and begun developing their own burgeoning economies, good on 'em. They at least have not been demoralised by the economic vandalism of Douglas and Richardson, and betrayed by the very institutions set up for protection against grasping Fat Cattists.
I wonder what these fat cat magnates are supposed to invest in, in this country. Recall what happened with Telecom and NZ Rail, both milked by their 'investors', gauging the captive market on the one hand, and running the outfit into the ground on the other. Investment? Yeah. Right. I have more than half a notion that NZ Steel cost this country more to sell than its 'investors' to buy.
So... what is there to invest in? Tell you what: you're more likely to get investors if you look to China. The Chinese at the moment seem to be more imaginative than the Anglophone West, and Maori might find them more engaging business collaborators and competitors. The age of Anglophone global hegemony is finished; and anglophone dominance in this country is dying.
As a Pakeha in the final year of his third quarter-century, I can't say I'm all that fussed by that... provided, of course, the ebbing tide of social benefits - the Common Weal - is reversed.
Cheers,
Ion A. Dowman
I don't think "Maori" can be compared to Cuban rebels because
a. Who is a Maori?
b. Communism then was an untested idea based on equality whereas Maori nationalism is a niche ideology supported by judges and people with blue hair?
I believe I understand what you are thinking Chris. But they are your thoughts and not fact imo. Of course you don’t know the mood of the men and women that sat around the table as guest investors, but you seem to be suggesting that Maori have the cash and are the future, or at least have the current economic stability that would be attractive for these companies to invest here.
Regardless of the economic destruction that was left to this coalition to repair, these companies can see that the measures taken by this government are working, and we are already seeing signs of improvement. Put simply the current government is fiscally responsible. If we look at some of the infrastructure projects, roading etc, they will be self funding or user pays, and companies like the Italian tunnelling company are already working here and are quite happy it seems, to continue doing so. NZ is as stable as any country these days and more important to any investing company, pays its bills. There is also plenty of opportunity for growth unlike some other more fully developed areas of the world imo.
As for Tuko Morgan. I got the impression he was irritated that Maori seemed to be initially left out of the party, and if that was the case his arrogance was some what justified. I don’t know why but I think I like Tuko’s silk underpants from his government days better that Tuko himself. He seems to carry a chip on his shoulder.
In my mind It needs to be remembered that the Maori economy, which is the basis of the separatist aspirations of the Maori elite, has been funded initially by Waitangi Tribunal settlements which in turn came out of (and is still coming) out of, all NZrs pockets. It is also clear to me that the Maori tax payers of NZ also have funded these settlements and the majority of those Maori tax payers have not seen much benefit from the money to date. Correct me if I’m am wrong. There will be Maori employed with fishing companies etc but other Maori will have seen nothing of this money. The elite’s have been looking after themselves.
Although Tuko Morgan is correct in that Maori interests would be good to invest in, I don’t feel these investors will prioritise consideration to them over the crown. If these investing companies are looking at Maori interests, there better be well designed and costed projects for them to consider or Maori interests will look unprepared and inexperienced.
I believe the lack of spirit is something you seem to feel Chris, not Luxon or ordinary NZrs. The man oozes enthusiasm, justified or not, which will rub off on his team. NZ being in a shaky and vulnerable state is a perception. That perception is what Luxon hopes to change by this time next year in spite of the opposition parties, the PSA, unions and the media. He may fail to win the majority of the population over, but it won’t be through a lack of his spirit, or the spirit of all the NZ companies and small businesses. He will be hoping all NZrs will be feeling better about their prospects next year. That's what he will be telling these guest investors.
The British are the greatest colonisers of the modern era. The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are prosperous democracies. Just compare Latin America to Anglo-America.
I consider myself to be culturally Antipodean Anglo-Celtic. English is my native tongue and I feel blessed to speak the world's first global lingua franca.
It is true that the indigenous inhabitants of North America and Australasia - including my Maori ancestors - got shafted. But I get to live in a prosperous democratic English-speaking nation.
I am proud to descend from people from England, Scotland and Denmark who crossed the world in tiny wooden ships to seek their fortune. The last foreigners I descend from were a Danish family that arrived in Wellington Harbour in 1875.
New Zealanders are, in the words of the Split Enz song, "The last of the pioneers".
Chris: "the best returns are likely to come from........ the fast-growing Māori economy."
Well what investor wouldn't relish the prospect of "jumping into bed" with a tax free, opaque outfit underwritten by tax payer funded largess with it's affiliates elevated into statutory resource oversight councils and the whole largely unhindered by public enquiry and accountability?
A crony capitalist's wet dream.
Mr the Barron: you seem to hold the error I made before coming to NZ in 1982 ( and before seeing England), that NZ and Blighty were v similar on the scale and Canada way out. Absolutely wrong - Albion is the one way out there.
Carney, like a lot of ignorant forelock tugging cultural cringers, whatever Mickey Mouse medals he has collected in a career of failing upwards, like far more Eastern and Laurentian ‘elites’, denies his North Americanism.
If you clumped around in a suit of armour and called yourself a Plantagenet, I could not think less of your sense than I do of him.
European culture is great. He’s not a European, as you aren’t a feudal Lord.
Mr Belich’s work is not unknown to me. Volumes in this house.
Your comprehension of N American realities may be, like many here, shallow.
However. In case you think there is prejudice against Eastern ‘Freeze in the Dark B…….’ Canada, there is much less of that than honor to Northrop Frye, which pays for all.
Northrop Frye and Abraham Lincoln are glories of N America who way more than compensate for any demerits from that troublesome ( to others, more so the stupid) land.
The truth of such demerits I doubt v much you have an accurate view of.
Could someone please explicitly define, preferably with examples, "the Maori Economy"? How does it differ from, shall we say, "the Pakeha Economy"? Is it stand alone or does it use resources from the Pakeha economy such as roads and other infrastructure, in which case, how is it envisaged that it will pay its fair share?
And could someone please explain the paradox that if the Maori economy is currently so strong then why is that not translated into better economic and social statistics for the general Maori populace? (Evidently, Tainui, Tuku's tribe, have had decades of highly successful, tax free business investments while Ngaruawahia and Huntly perpetually struggle in every sense.)
Once again I will give the consideration of a reply even though your vocabulary is obviously wide, but your ordering unusual.
I have only the knowledge that Carney is alumni of Oxford and Harvard, and has been governor of the Bank of England and the reserve Bank of Canada. He is Canadian Prime Minister, but has yet to face an electorate.
He has immediately made diplomatic overtures to Canada's traditional foundation nations, Britain and France, as well as the King of Canada. He has given assurance of national sovereignty and overturned his party's polling.
This seems a robust start, but the snap election could show him up, especially under FPP.
I keep an open mind, but your three entries on the subject in this blog has given me nothing to decry him as a "fool'.
We all suffer from ‘Unknown Unknowns’, to use a phrase from a high official in the Bush Jnr years. I hope my replies to you, Mr The Barron, are not taken as knowing all.
New Zealand would have done better if N Americans ate ‘lamb’ more than they do. Why didn’t they, esp post WWII? It was explained to me that troops sent to Europe got fed badly cooked ( who is going to spend 8 hours in wartime slowly cooking it?) old mutton and learned to detest it. As would anyone.
Perfidious Albion was NZs only economic partner, in that. Too bad.
And, N Americans didn’t take to bidets because their only exposure to that then was in whorehouses. And they could not bear the association with clean and innocent wives and homes, back home.
I wonder if this reply is going to get posted.
NZ is peculiar with certain truths, as N Americans are to others.
To their cost.
And every form to be filled in that insists filling in ethnicity and gives you the primary ‘choice’ of ‘NZ European’, belies a deep and harmful ignorance.
What kind of elite is it, that burns the otherwise delicious mutton, and in most matters high and low persists in folly.
Won’t be told, can’t learn, wants us to believe it’s the one source of truth.
It’s a much bigger problem than who is PM.
The elephant in the room is the same as it has been for the past generation: local investment has been dominated by the real estate bubble ever since the 1987 Crash. Or as Bernard Hickey describes it, a housing market with an economy tacked on. Things are slowly changing with the likes of KiwiSaver & the NZ Super Fund, but more could be done.
And as Archduke Piccolo has mentioned earlier, Telecom & TranzRail haven't been forgotten. How do we know the latest cargo cult of foreign investment will go toward building factories, research labs & human capital, instead of simply being parked, tax haven style?
In 1858, the Minister of Native Affairs, Christopher William Richmond described Maori society as "beastly communism"
"Chastity, decency and thrift cannot exist admist the waste, filth and moral comtanimation of the Pahs,"
He went on to do everything he could, in the name of the Crown to destroy culture, customs and trading practices in order to break Maori land tenure with settler acquisition the priority and Maori often left land less and the work age moving as labour's on ancestral land to maintain subsistence living.
I see Tuku Morgan described as an activist. I have always remembered
him around a Nation cabinet table.
Comments from the conservative in this forum about Morgan seem an echo of Richmond. I have alwa6had in my mind a fictional conversion between him and Maori as he explained thr colonial economy- "you see all the things we have built well they are ours , meanwhile those things you have now, they will also be ours
But good luck in the future.if you do rebuild your economic and cultural base, rather than promote in as a success story , we will still criticize..
One man's New Zealand business leader is another man's activist.
Imv the term 'Maori Economy' refers to the business operations of individual iwi. Rhetorically and ideologically it gives the impression of a collective entity but I don't think this is the case. Collectively, 'the Maori Economy' would contribute to the wider economy of New Zealand - but as a comment above highlights, many iwi-based business seem to have have special tax concessions. Still, iwi-based business do provide employment - at all levels, executive to deck hand - thus attract personal tax and generate spending power, hence GST. To what extent it all trickles down to individuals who whakapapa back to a particular iwi I'm not sure, but there are education grants and the like - most likely business loans if a good business case is presented.
Take a look at the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu website (the large South Island iwi). Its investment arm, Ngāi Tahu Holdings Corporation, owns a diverse portfolio with interests in farming, property, seafood, tourism, among other interests, with the stated aim of generating wealth for Ngāi Tahu whānui (families).
A look at Waikato-Tainui gives a similar picture, as does the affairs of Auckland's largest iwi, Ngāti Whātua-o-Ōrākei, who have considerable landholdings close to the CBD.
A pretty simplistic overview but it'll give you a start.
Did you see this by Claire Lehman, Chris?
People in power just deny and get away with it.
https://youtu.be/Eb1FAyxHMBI
Like Michael Laws
https://youtu.be/Iw78bJYolOs
Generally, the Maori economy is relating to the Iwi assets, enterprises and investment. Iwi registered members will get dividends and most Iwi have a democratic structure with executive and expert officers appointed beneath that structure.
There is no equivalent "Pakeha structure", the closest would be family enterprises such as Todd Energy was. Another comparison for a defined geographic section of New Zealanders could be seen as the sub-governmental authorities of local government.
There is no paradox. Not all Iwi have settlement. Some Iwi organizations that are financially successful will invest in their members education or housing, but Articles 1 & 3 put the responsibility of social welfare, health, housing, education and employment development with the Crown. This does not mean the Crown cannot divest the provision for Maori of the delivery of those services to Iwi, hapu and urban authorities. This would acknowledge Article 2. Indeed, that has been shown to be the most successful mode of service delivery.
New research from the Helen Clark Foundation shows almost half of NZ men under the age of 44 like the idea of an authoritarian leader, and attitudes towards migrants are much, much more negative than in Australia.
https://x.com/jacktame/status/1906102828126580881
My impression has been that they have covered this up. Paul Spoonley informed us that attitudes to immigration were trending up (except for Maori which were trending down)?
Helen Clark was always the problem. People need elites to confirm their identity and sense of belonging. That necessitates us not being other people. Instead "we are diverse". This became the primary goal.
Helen Clark and John Key made "a good economy for property developers and real estate agents".
As Duncan Garner observed: "we have ruined Paradise".
What do you say, Chris Trotter? Speak up man!?
Post a Comment