At times it’s impossible not to wonder whether some of National’s ministers — and the Prime Minister — have early-onset Alzheimer’s. It is as if they have found themselves in government but can’t remember exactly how they got there and why they won.
They often seem to forget that their success in 2023’s election was due in no small part to the impression they gave that their party was opposed to race-based policies generally — beyond simply repealing Three Waters and disestablishing the Maori Health Authority.
When pushed on “Maorification”, Christopher Luxon will sometimes make the right noises. Asked in May about a job for a tikanga lead advertised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, he told Mike Hosking’s Newstalk ZB programme that National would “call out” Maorification wherever they saw it. He cited removing traffic control stop-go signs in te reo in the Hawke’s Bay as proof.
“We need the stop-go signs to be very unambiguous,” Luxon said. “We want everybody in the public service focused on delivery, focused on results, and not lots of resources tied up in things that isn’t core business. Where it comes out and they get it wrong, we’re very quick to clamp down on it.”
But for many his spiel would have seemed an unconvincing assertion of National’s dedication to the task. Jobs advertised by the Public Service Commission are still regularly littered with passages and words in te reo. A recent ad for a policy advisor for deaf children, for instance, requires “The ability to understand and apply the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi | The Treaty of Waitangi and tangatawhenuatanga.”
More significantly, National’s legislative programme is a mish-mash of attempts to rein in the extension of Māori influence in law and policy as well as initiatives that do the exact opposite. It could be summed up — perhaps generously — as “two steps forward, one step back.”
As a consequence, it is very difficult for voters to get a fix on National’s position overall. Where ministers stand on the issue of race-based policy often seems to depend on their individual preferences.
In July, in her amendment bill, Education minister Erica Stanford didn’t seize the opportunity to remove the existing Treaty clauses in the Education and Training Act 2020. And she rejigged the most prominent reference to the Treaty to make it look as if she had reduced its status when she hadn’t. She also told Parliament in April that “giving effect to Te Tiriti is essential and key to support student achievement”.
This will come as little surprise to those who see Stanford as leaning towards “progressive” views on such issues but what has surprised many is that last December Judith Collins introduced the Gene Technology Bill that includes a bizarre genuflection to the Treaty in creating a Māori Advisory Committee focused on tikanga and mātauranga Māori (in science legislation no less!).
The extent of the committee’s proposed powers are yet to be tested when (and if) the bill becomes law but it has been described as enabling co-governance via the back door.
On the other hand, last year Chris Bishop announced the Cabinet had approved dropping the “generic Treaty clause” in the replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act 1991. RMA reform was a key plank in the National Party’s election manifesto (and part of its coalition agreement with Act).
National has also driven changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 that dramatically tighten the rules allowing iwi and hapū to gain Customary Marine Title (CMT) to the coast.
Most voters — if they know anything much at all about the amendments to the 2011 law — will probably understand the changes were sparked by NZ First’s coalition agreement with National to clarify the test for customary title outlined in section 58 of the legislation.
However, Treaty Negotiations and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has gone well beyond the terms of that agreement by overturning court decisions made since July last year that have granted CMT to 280km of New Zealand’s coastline. Any CMT orders granted between that date and the amendment act becoming law must be reheard under the new test.
Not only has the importance of tikanga in formulating court decisions been significantly reduced but the burden of proof for fulfilling the tests in s58 — ie, that the iwi / hapū applicant group “holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga; and has, in relation to the specified area, exclusively used and occupied it from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption” — has been shifted entirely to them.
And in September, Goldsmith warned the judiciary the government is willing to further legislate “over the top” of other court decisions that rely on concepts such as tikanga and Treaty obligations in order to maintain legal clarity.
Yet in the very same week Goldsmith issued his warning to the courts about tikanga, Finance minister Nicola Willis made an astonishing admission during a session for business leaders as part of the NZ Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom survey.
Asked if National had been able to “govern alone, or close to it, what would you have done differently?”, she replied, “I think you would have seen less focus on Māori-related issues.”
She classed this as “a bold but blunt assessment”.
Blunt and bold, perhaps, but also unwise. If anything is going to boost the votes of NZ First and Act — and keep National’s share of the centre-right vote low — it is an admission by a senior minister that National is not fully committed to opposing Maorification.
Far too often, National’s left hand doesn’t appear to know what the right hand is doing. Tama Potaka claimed in March not to know that the generic Treaty clause in the RMA had disappeared in the replacement law spearheaded by Chris Bishop. This despite the fact he is the Minister for Māori Development and — as Bishop pointed out — sits in the Cabinet that approved the change.
Given the conflicting stances taken by National’s senior ministers, the party’s supporters have very good reason to feel confused as they struggle to decipher where it stands. Many have become resentful that it has not always fulfilled the expectations regarding Maorification they formed during the 2023 election campaign.
It’s true that the new coalition government quickly overturned Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority as promised, but many voters expected it to carry on with the same enthusiasm with which it had begun its term in office.
It is extremely difficult to understand why National’s strategists don’t appear to grasp how much of its support depends on the party continuing that initial push — and advertising it.
Perhaps this failure stems from the mistake of looking at polls that list the issues voters are most concerned about and assuming that topics such as race relations and Māori issues that don’t fill the top spots aren’t very important.
In fact, voters often care very strongly about issues ranked lower in a list, even if their immediate concerns about the cost of living, inflation, housing and health are rated higher.
Instinctual politicians like Winston Peters understand this. As, of course, does Donald Trump. Voter surveys that included transgender issues would never have told the US President that his campaign should pour tens of millions into an advertisement near election day that said simply: “Kamala Harris is for they/them. Trump is for you.”
It was devastatingly effective, and is widely credited for boosting Trump’s final election tally.
Voters are rarely left in any doubt where Winston Peters and David Seymour stand on the issue of Maorification — whether it is pushing back on te reo in public services and passports or the issue of the foreshore and seabed. And they are quick to claim the credit.
After the referendums on Māori wards were held last month, Seymour pointed out on social media: “[Act] campaigned for and won the right for communities to vote on Māori wards. While it is sad that 17 communities voted to keep race-based seats, 25 communities voted to remove them. That’s 25 communities where the council tried to divide the electorate by race, and the people rejected it.”
Luxon has recently taken to social media to remind the public that National has pushed back hard against gangs and has significantly reduced the number of ram raids and victims of violent crime, and to trumpet trade deals. But he has done nothing similar to advertise the steps National has taken against Maorification.
An obvious example is the lack of fanfare after the MACA amendment bill passed its third reading last month. National didn’t even put out a press release boasting about its role in protecting the rights of all New Zealanders to the coastline.
Unfortunately, Luxon has squandered any credibility he might have had on these issues. When he was asked by The Platform’s Sean Plunket at a post-Cabinet press conference last November what he liked or disliked about David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, he replied: “There isn’t anything I like.”
It was an extraordinarily dismissive response given that one of the bill’s aims was to establish equal rights before the law for all New Zealanders irrespective of race. With his abrupt dismissal, Luxon effectively sided with the Toitū te Tiriti protesters who had marched on Parliament.
As a result of National’s disconnected and contradictory approach to Maorification, few — rightly or wrongly — expect much of substance to be achieved by Goldsmith’s promised review of Treaty clauses in legislation.
In fact, it is probably far too late for Luxon and National to take a credible and unequivocal stand opposing co-governance and Maorification in the run-up to next year’s election.
The party will just have to stand by and watch votes bleed to David Seymour and Winston Peters as they make such opposition a key and credible part of their pitch to voters.