Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mountain Tūī's avatar

It's hard to take this essay seriously when it uses the right wing term "elites" as representative of those who disagree with the Bill, and suggest the best legal minds in our country opine as they do for self-interest.

Rather, they opine because constitutional and legal interpretation is their bread and butter.

Just as medical doctors might opine on smokefree repeal or on the merits of health policies.

It's ludicruous to say otherwise.

As to Curia, an organisation which was due to be expelled/suspended from the polling industry body before David Farrar jumped - it's hardly worth the paper it's written on.

Chris Trotter claims he's from the left while he appears to support libertarian interests which are ironically driven by true elites and oligarchs, and this piece is masked as objectivity when it can't help but leak out the talking points of ACT and David Seymour and concealing others.

PS I agree that ACT / National could succeed one day - they have the money and the resources behind it. And the cultivation of 6 months is nothing but a brute force publicity campaign for a contrived problem that has nothing to do with advancing the welfare of NZ.

All round, a very disappointing article for the bias it can't help but show, as well as insufficient analysis on the rhetoric.

Expand full comment
Geoff Fischer's avatar

The "elites" are opposed to the Treaty Principles Bill largely for pragmatic reasons. They quite properly fear that the Bill threatens to undermine the New Zealand state which depends for its survival on a collaborative relationship between Maori and the Crown. Although generally unremarked, this has been the case since kupapa troops tipped the balance in the war between Maori and colonialist forces in the nineteenth century wars of resistance, and it is as true in 2024 as it has ever been.

The movement fronted by the ACT party is not a simple US or European style populist revolt against the elites. The key difference is the existence of Maori, an existence which the TPB seeks to deny ("Maori are nothing more than citizens") and which Bryce manages to pretty well ignore in his analysis of the conflict.

Pakeha, on the other hand, for the most part have a symbiotic relationship with Maori and are rightly uneasy about the intentions of the Treaty Principles Bill.

In Europe and the US, right wing demagogues have worked towards inciting "citizens" (predominately ethnic Europeans) against "immigrants" (who happen to be mainly colored) and foreigners. To apply that same "populist" strategy against an indigenous minority such as Maori who have strong positive connections to other ethnic groups is to display a serious lack of political nous.

Over the past week we have seen thousands of tino rangatiratanga, whakaminenga and hapu flags flying in the streets and parks with the colonialist flag nowhere to be seen. This signifies a watershed moment in the history of the nation. The "elites" in Wellington have taken notice. They can see which way the wind blows and know that they must change tack. That is why the National Party in particular are most unlikely to risk allowing the Bill to proceed into law.

It has become clear over recent weeks that if Maori come into renewed conflict with the Crown there will be unity, and not just among iwi. This time around kotahitanga will extend deep into Pakeha and other ethnic communities putting the survival of the colonialist system in doubt for the first time in over a century.

Expand full comment
76 more comments...

No posts