One of the things that fascinates me is how those on the opposite side of issues are often, paradoxically, acting and speaking in the same way. Nothing currently better highlights this than discussion of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Maori and ACT parties respectively.
For years, the likes of the Maori Party, various academics, and activists have reinterpreted the Treaty. Or to be more accurate, they have called for a change of understanding from what evolved in the early years after the signing itself in 1840 or the Kohimarama conference a few years later. There is much nuance of course, but their basic thrust is that sovereignty was never ceded, that the British agreed to simply protect the local tribes, and that there would be an equal partnership between the Crown and Maori.
I say fine. People are welcome to interpret, change, argue for change as those above are doing. Yet now that this revisionist view – stressing equal partnership – has taken ascendency via academia, the left, and mainstream media then no change or discussion is allowed. Those once arguing for reinterpretation are now saying that there should no debate when they have power and influence. Anyone who questions this narrative is attacked, derided, called names, or simply censored and ignored. It is, sadly, the classic pulling up of the very ladder used to get them to where they are today. We see this in universities where those once calling for dissent are now the same ones calling for others to be de-platformed, cancelled, or banned if they hold alternative or traditional ideas.
And yet, paradoxically, the push by the likes of the ACT Party to reinterpret the treaty’s principles are the same. Now with some power in government, they simply want their interpretation to be the interpretation. There appears little discussion, similar name calling, and little willingness to genuinely debate and discuss. If the latter was true, there would not be a proposed law being drafted with an already established and prescribed set of understandings. Like the Maori Party’s ‘power’ via media, ACT’s power is by holding influence in government.
One simple thought experiment is to consider if either/both Parties lost their power and influence. If media didn’t push and entertain the new activist narrative, how much traction would it actually get? Have the likes of the ACT Party considered that by trying to draft a law with their view, that a future government could now simply follow their precedent and change the principles to what they want them to be?
Ultimately, when you step back and look at how each side are acting, they are acting the same. They both wish their interpretation to be the only interpretation. This is somewhat ironic when you simultaneously consider that this is a treaty – by it’s nature, a document of at least two parties. There will always be different views and interpretations. Consequently, a treaty is often going to be controversial, under consideration, and interpreted differently by different people. It is one of the reasons I maintain that the Treaty of Waitangi does not make a particularly good constitutional document.
I should add for completeness, I am making no pretense around the substance of each side’s argument – that can be an op-ed for another day. What fascinates me is how those arguing in opposition are actually acting in a similar way.
For those scholarly minded, all of this is called mimesis (and actually, a study I did my Honours dissertation in!).
BRIEFS
Defence in Crisis. It is good to see media focusing in on our military capabilities. Sad as the situation is, it needs to be highlighted so that we finally give the funding needed to our armed forces. A recent article talked of attrition in our Special Forces (SF). I will only say, from my own conversations with key people, that it is a deeply serious problem and one that a simple one off payment will not solve. Attrition is bad across every branch, but critical in our SF.
Until a government (and let’s be clear, the situation we are in today is the result of multiple governments’ actions) finds the substantial funds to upgrade and improve military bases; works out a better housing arrangement for military families; understands the importance of purpose and deployments; better equipment and interoperability with our allies; and much more – then this attrition will continue.
I am pleased to see the government reviewing New Zealand’s funding to UNRWA (he United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees). Even before the current tragedy in the Middle East, I raised in the foreign affairs committee several times how the agency was funding education resources that glorified violence and extremism. There is a rot at the heart of this agency that needs to be addressed. In the past governments and officials have turned a blind eye, so again, good to see some attention being paid to this UN agency so that hopefully it can truly return to its purpose.
The Green Party need a new co-leader and the process now in train highlights the farcical nature of identify politics at the heart of their decision making. Where once the concept of co-leadership was based on sex (a male and female), this is no longer in vogue. In fact, now we see the irony of insisting on a female yet simultaneously insisting the other must be non-binary. How they can be so definitive at one level, but then fluid at another is confusing at best. Add in requirements on race/ethnicity, then a supposed open selection really becomes one relatively controlled. Watch this space and grab the popcorn!
Hong Kong is looking to expand the National Security Law. The current law passed a few years back has already seen democracy in Hong Kong strangled. We see the sham trial of Jimmy Lai, Andy Li, and other democracy advocates happening right now. We already know many from the 'West' are leaving, and more will do so with the terrible further uncertainties this law promotes. The new law expands what is known as Article 23 and among other things, would now include ‘external interference in domestic affairs’. Put simply, a person in Hong Kong dealing with someone overseas could run afoul of the law.
Finally, my thanks to everyone for the feedback on my last newsletter discussing the lack of terrorist designations in New Zealand. Your thoughts, challenges, and questions are always welcome.
Cheers
Simon
Great Article, but i really think the way the ACT party is trying to interpret the treaty is more democratic and better for New Zealand then the Maori Party, so far based on their published ideas and various interviews you can clearly see that ACT party is trying to maintain the little democracy left in New Zealand by advocating that we are all equal and have equal rights no matter our ancestors or time lived in New Zealand while on the other hand Maori party is just trying to write their own treaty where people who identify as Maoris will need to be sat at the decision making table just because of their ancestors and they totally oppose democratic elections and people power to actually choose their leaders and who represents them , on the other hand we have seen how many times they have caused trouble at the parliament rather then actually debating and voicing their concerns and ideas,
( sorry for the bad english still learning )
Except the ACT party I believe wants there to be an actual debate, discussion about those so called 'Treaty Principles' , which would ultimately involve everyone, not just a few Liberal Academics, poorly informed or mismotivated politicians, & Maori radicals & malcontents who have their own sovereignty agendas after the fact, & have 'interpreted' the 'Three Articles' of the Treaty into a 'grab bag' of what they would have liked their 'ancestors' to have agreed to!
Read Sir Apirana Ngata's explanation of the Treaty! https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/TreatyOfWaitangiBySirApiranaNgata.pdf
Furthermore, the 'Treaty' in of itself is not a 'Constitutional Document', it is a 'Treaty', bringing together two peoples, now both subject to the Crown, establishing a 'starting point' for 'all' British subjects, including Maori to form a nation called New Zealand, to be governed according to British Law at that time!
Yes, as a 'nation' we have created our own 'laws & jurisprudence' according to a Westminster Parliamentary Democracy, nothing else!
What was the 'original promise', & 'commitment' made by by those who signed the Treaty as expressed in those 'Three Articles'!
Indeed, let's 'Honour the Treaty' this Waitangi Day for what it actually states!