Guest Post: Treaty of Waitangi Principles and TVOne Breakfast

A guest post by a reader:

Most of us have by now no doubt seen the start of an interview with David Seymour on TV One Breakfast where he took the host to task for the manner in which the discussion was introduced.  Essentially (partly my words and partly his) he suggested the introduction  made at least one mistake of fact and was unreasonably “framing” the matter as divisive.  

I want briefly to suggest two ways in which the Bill has been viewed simplistically if not unfairly, then suggest a counter-argument, and then swing back to media framing.

A significant criticism of the Bill proposed by TV One, is its supposed divisiveness.  On one level that is transparently true.  The Bill has divided us and thus ipso facto it is divisive.

However, let’s examine that by analogy.

Imagine you and your significant other are having relationship difficulties.  Imagine that you sit your partner down one evening after dinner and suggest quietly and reasonably that it’s clear there are things you both need to discuss, and that after some early discussion between you it might be worth exploring these matters with a counsellor to see if resolution can be reached.

Imagine at that point your partner starts yelling and screaming, throws a few things, gets right up into your face and abuses you, and commences a tirade about the integrity of your marriage or other commitment.  Imagine that their position is that the sanctity of your past vows allowed for no further discussion irrespective of how things had moved in the interim.

Now note this analogy is offered around perceptions of behaviour not around what precisely the Treaty says or does not say.

My point is this.  Which is the more accurate way to frame those events, as an expression of divisiveness on the part of one party or as an overreaction on the part of the other?

Second point.  I assert as many many others have done that meddling (my word) with the Treaty has not started with ACT.  My working life has aligned with the growth of novel Treaty jurisprudence.  I have watched it from the sidelines while becoming increasingly concerned at the confusion and paralysis it is causing the public sector.

Again setting aside the substantive merits of this change, it is not a logical or tenable position to pour vitriol on ACT for wanting to do what others have done.  It is after all simply seeking a re-examination of the Treaty to ensure it meets current understandings and expectations.  That is no more than what has occurred over the last forty years.  The critics cannot have it both ways by treating the Treaty as dynamic when they want change and static when they don’t like the direction discussions of change are going in.

Now I am a Socratic man whose worldview is rooted in logic and rationality that underpin western culture.  So too I would suggest is David Seymour.

And that is the rub.  Maori reaction to the Bill is, it seems to me, rooted much more in the “vibe”.  That is, the symbolism of possible change is outrageous and an affront to mana irrespective of how we got to where we are today.  Now I “get” that may be a cultural response.  Personally it’s not one I favour and I have limited optimism for this country’s future if major issues are resolved in terms of subjective emotional responses to things.  But I do allow that others may have contrary views and/or want with the very best of intentions to leave room for them so far as this is possible.

But the two perspectives are ships passing in the night.  There is no ready way to reconcile them.  And that is precisely ACTs point.  If divergent views of the Treaty continue, and separatist understandings of what the Treaty mandates prevail, the society which evolves under its banner is unlikely to be much different.  And it is not hard to predict what will follow.  Fiji anyone?  

In my view then there are very clear grounds for regarding much criticism of the Treaty Bill as one-dimensional and unbalanced.  And so back to TV One.  Was its framing of the Bill unbalanced, if not biased?  Of course it was.    

A more balanced view could have taken any number of forms.  It could have used phrases such as “perceived divisiveness”.  It could have referred to the dynamic nature of understanding of the Treaty of which the ACT view is but another form.  It could have spoken of the Bill evoking “extreme reactions” which in my view would have been the most accurate way of describing what has occurred.  

None of this appears commonly in the media narrative.  Instead we have a stunning piece of illogic by which those seeking to reconcile diverging understandings are assumed to be sowing division by even raising the topic; a suggestion more farcical when it is noted that it is the other party (not formally but in terms of intellectual leadership) to the debate which has moved its views so as to create the divergence. 

All the best to us all as we grapple with these thorny issues while keeping the ship on course…..