Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins recently disagreed on whether they think Māori ceded sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. So I thought it would be interesting to see what NZers thought, so we asked 1,000 NZers in our October monthly poll (3 to 7 Oct). The results are at my Patreon (paywalled).
Note that the question was over whether sovereignty was ceded, not over whether the Government today has sovereignty.
Stats NZ has reported the data from the census on sexual orientation and gender identity. It is very useful to have accurate population counts.
Gender
So around 0.3% of the adult population have a different gender identity to their biological sex and a further 0.44% say they are non-binary. So that is around 1 in 333 are trans and 1 in 227 non-binary.
However around 560,000 adults did not answer this question. If you include those people, then we have 0.26% are trans and 0.38% non-binary.
Sexual Orientation
So around 19/20 are heterosexual, 1 in 40 bisexual and 1 in 67 gay/lesbian.
Intersex
This is around 1 in 222 who are intersexual.
At Patreon, I have published my monthly summary of the polls in Australia, Canada, NZ, UK and US. The new UK Government is having a terrible time, and the US election is looking like I may come down to one state!
Readers will be aware of how WCC set up an inquiry into allegations a Councillor had leaked information to the media about the proposed corporate welfare deal with Reading Cinemas.
Many months later it was revealed that the anonymous source who sparked the inquiry was Nadine Walker, the Chief of Staff to Tory Whanau (both are former Green Party staffers).
But it gets far worse than that. Documents just released under the OIA reveal that the person who came up with a shortlist of people to conduct the inquiry was also Nadine Walker, and that this was based on talking to Green Party staff in Parliament. Then she helped select the reviewer.
So Nadine Walker was the anonymous whistleblower. She also did the short-list of reviewers, helped select the reviewer and then presumably got interviewed by the reviewer in her capacity as the anonymous whistleblower.
This is beyond belief. The conflicts of interest are huge. There is no criticism of the reviewer (whom I have considerable respect for in terms of her ability and integrity), but with WCC who poisoned and politicised the Code of Conduct complaint process as an act of political utu. How could they allow the anonymous complainant to be the person who shortlists the reviewer?
A very good column by Paul Ridley-Smith, who is a former director of Wellington Airport. He notes:
The Officers’ paper, that vociferously argues to continue with the sales process, is a mixture of a well reasoned and economically rational arguments for the sale, and pages of complete nonsense and irrationally presented scaremongering about the consequences of not selling.
Briefly, the principal reasons given for the sale are sound. When the big shake comes, the city will be better placed to meet the costs if it has an NZ Super type diversified investment fund, rather than a 34% shareholding in a compromised asset in a quake damaged city.
Selling now removes the risk that the Council might need to tip more money into the Airport to maintain its 34% shareholding when Infratil decides to call for more capital to fund new projects. Auckland City has twice in recent years been diluted down in its Auckland Airport investment, on unfavourable terms, because it couldn’t fund the cash calls.
And, for completeness and these are my views, there’s no strategic value in a 34% shareholding in a business where someone else holds 66%. If you believe, when push comes to shove, Infratil won’t do precisely whatever it wants with the Airport, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
There isn’t a strategic value in the Airport shares, just a strategic risk.
Yep, all good reasons to sell, basically:
However he also notes:
The case for sale should end there. But, for reasons that utterly confound, Officers go on to construct bogus scenarios to seek to scare the big-spending left-wing Councillors into selling and embarrass the fiscally sensible Councillors for not believing in alchemy. …
The errors start with Officers postulating that the 34% shareholding is worth $492m. But Infratil’s 2024 Annual Report assesses the fair value of its 66% shareholding at $624m, implying the Council’s 34% shareholding is worth $321m. Officers then postulate that investing this $492m (and another $50m from selling ground leases) could compound to deliver the City an investment fund worth $6,400 million by 2072, while still getting dividends each year from the fund equal to the dividends that the Airport is forecasting to pay, or perhaps $16,000 million if all dividends are reinvested.
Fantastical nonsense.
If the perpetual investment fund is the next version of Grant Robertson’s money-printing machine, then let’s keep spending. But not selling turns off the money-printing and Officers say $400-$600m will need to come off discretionary capital spending over the next few years. The Golden Mile, cycleways, the Khandallah Pool and Begonia House upgrades and all manner of nice things will have to be cut.
Now pause here, and sense check these claims.
Does any reader believe that if they swap their $49,200 Kiwisaver balance from ANZ to BNZ they can then spend $60,000 more on a new kitchen and bathroom? But leave it with ANZ, then the kitchen and bathroom stay in the glossy catalogue. That’s what Officers are saying. Switch the asset from A to B and you can spend up to another $600m. Don’t switch then you must cancel that spending.
And this is why some fiscally conservative Councillors are now against the sale. Because it will be used to keep spending unaffordably high.
Half of the Officers’ advice makes perfect sense (diversification of investment risk is sound) so vote to sell. The other half admits that the Council is financially at its limit, the status quo position (ie keeping the Airport shares and spending up as the 2024-2034 LTP forecasts) creates too much financial risk, the Council is on the verge of imprudent financial management and a ratings downgrade, but all this can be managed by moving assets from one bucket to another. The rational and responsible response to such advice is keep the Airport shares and get on with cutting the excessive spending and escalation of debt and pulling back the rates increases. Deal to the underlying issues and not pretend that selling the Airport shares, or not, is pivotal. No sale could be that blessing in disguise.
Yep sell the shares, and cut the excessive spending.
A related issue is council staff have gained legal advice that says Council is not allowed to amend a recommendation from the LTP Committee, because it has delegated the plan to them. They say the only way to amend the LTP is to remove the delegation from the LTP Committee. In the absence of that, they can only accept a recommendation or send it back.
This contrary to every organisation I know. It’s like saying Cabinet can’t amend papers from Cabinet Committees or a company board can’t amend a recommendation from a sub-committee.
The Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom has found:
So 18 out of 28 Ministers got a rating of 3 or higher.
How does it compare to the ratings for Labour’s Ministers last year:
So the areas where CEOs think Ministers are doing most better is Education, Transport, Police, Foreign Affairs and Infrastructure.
The difference in Education is especially profound with Erica Stanford seen as the best performing Minister and Labour’s Jan Tinetti the worst performing one last year.
A guest post by Lucy Rogers:
Today as the one-year anniversary of October 7 approaches I decided to counterprotest this week’s pro-Hamas march down Queen Street. I thought my experiences were worth narrating.
Today’s message
I attended holding two signs simultaneously, one in each hand: one saying HAMAS RAPED, TORTURED + MURDERED 1200 ISRAELI JEWS AND ARABS ON OCTOBER 7 2023 and the other saying PALESTINIAN AND JEWISH LIVES HAVE INFINITE VALUE. I stood silently and was approached by various people to discuss my views.
The ignorance was amazing
A group of teenage Māori girls approached me to abuse me. They were full of hatred for me and for Israel, ignored everything I was saying, and repeatedly accused me of being a “Zionist”. At the end of the conversation they said “What is Hamas?” I wish I could express how that made me feel but I really have no words.
October 7 denial is normal
Several Muslims approached me. Some denied October 7 altogether and some denied that civilians were murdered or that Hamas raped or tortured anyone. This is extremely normal at these protests. During my time counterprotesting these events I have heard over 100 people deny that Hamas killed civilians or that rape or torture occurred.
Antisemitism is common
An elderly white man who was vehemently antisemitic came up to me and abused me. This is also not unusual at these protests. Another woman said that it wasn’t worth dialoguing with “animals” like me. Some of the Muslim protesters told them to chill out and said I had a right to express my views.
There is a spectrum of views among the protesters
I emphasise that there is a spectrum of views amongst the protesters. Many are Muslims, many are communists, many are Māori who think that the Israel/ Palestine conflict resembles their struggles in Aotearoa. I get on well with many of them. Given the sheer radicalism of people like Emmy Rākete I have learned to appreciate anyone who genuinely disagrees with killing civilians even if they do not believe that October 7 happened.
New Zealand Police: a source of cross-political bonding?
One of my favourite moments today was when one of the protesters, Sophie, who knew about my arrest last year said: “On one thing Lucy we can agree: f*ck the police.” Having had to deal with the police harassing me again and again at these events I admit to a certain malicious glee today as a torrential downpour of rain soaked them while the rest of us were under shelter. (Having said that, the police largely behaved themselves today. Ngā mihi to the officer I was dealing with whose name was Olivia.)
The shocking content of the slogans during the march
Finally the march happened. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is so common at these events it doesn’t even bear commenting on, despite being a call for genocide. “There is only one solution: intifada, revolution” is shocking to anyone who knows what an intifada is but I have also heard it before. But today I heard a new one: “We don’t want your two states, we want 1948.”
Palestinians did not have self-determination prior to 1948
There is much that could be said. Palestine was under the control of the British in 1948 but I take it that Palestinians do not want a return to that, or for that matter to the Ottoman rule that preceded it. But that is beside the point, which is that Westerners need to get real about what it is that Palestinians really want.
Israel has not been unwilling to concede a two-state solution historically
The problem is not (at least historically) Israel’s unwillingness to agree to a two-state solution. The Palestinians have repeatedly been offered their own state including 90% of the West Bank, $30 billion in compensation for lost lands, East Jerusalem as their capital and control of the Temple Mount. Yasser Arafat turned down that offer. Why? Maybe we should consider the possibility that it is because the Palestinians mean what they say.
Westerners need to actually listen to what Palestinians are saying
It’s perfectly understandable of course. The Palestinians perceive the entire land as belonging to them. But Westerners need to take on board that that is what they want, and that the issue is not Israel’s supposed unwillingness to agree to a two-state solution (although following October 7 I think that’s off the table now). They’re literally chanting it on Queen Street. We should listen.
Here’s some footage:
I note by the way that I was recording primarily to protect myself from police lies if they chose to arrest me, and was trying to also hold my sign, so much of the time my camera faced the road rather than the protesters.
Philip Crump writes:
The first anniversary of the October 7 attacks by Hamas against Israel is approaching, and not a day since has passed when the consequences and after-shocks of that terrible day have not been felt around the world. More than any other event in living memory, it has polarised and divided people everywhere.
Eight weeks after the attacks, I was invited to the Israeli Embassy in Wellington to watch the 47 minutes of footage compiled by the Israeli Government called “Bearing Witness”. It represents only a fraction of the 150,000 video clips collected by Israel from webcam footage, phones, security cameras and other recording devices that were operating that day.
The Embassy invited approximately 60 people from New Zealand media to attend – 12 of us accepted. I have set out below what I saw – it is not intended to be partisan but simply an account of what happened that day and my impressions as an observer.
Did watching “Bearing Witness” alter any of my opinions? Yes, it did.
I expected to see men, women and children slaughtered but the level of hatred and barbarity was incomprehensible. Often the mutilation continued after the victim was killed as if that were only one stage in a process that would continue until what was left was unrecognizable. We saw 139 killings or bodies but in many cases the bodies were so disfigured or burned that they ceased to look human.
I also attended that viewing and blogged on it here.
It does, I think, at least partially explain Israel’s ferocious response in the year that has followed the attacks. In my view, anyone in the Israeli government or military who viewed that footage would conclude that they face an immediate existential threat. Their enemies do not simply wish to take territory or wage a war – killing was not enough. Their enemies that day wished for the elimination of every Jewish man, woman and child until nothing remained but dust. That was the point that I did not fully appreciate until I saw this footage.
This is a useful observation. Every decision maker in Israel would have seen this footage (or worse) and they see this as a fight for surivival.
The Taxpayers Union points out:
The Taxpayers’ Union is telling Hastings Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst to ‘grow up’ after she used her casting vote to give committee voting rights, and a salary, to members of the Hastings District Youth Council: school-aged kids. …
“Let’s get real. It’s a thinly-veiled move by left-leaning councillors to stack council committees with even more idealism and inexperience. Using kids for political leverage needs to be called out for what it is.”
“It’s also undemocratic. These children have no democratic mandate or accountability. It’s a blatant attempt to ‘screw the scrum’ by cynical politicians and grifters.”
“Local government is in crisis and instead of the adults prevailing, Mayor Hazlehurst is inviting kids with, at best, year 10 business studies, to cast votes on governance matters of an organisation with total assets of nearly three billion.”
So ratepayers will be funding salaries and costs for 15 year olds to sit and vote on Council committees. And people wonder why there is such disillusionment with local government.
Stuff reports:
New Zealand’s Defence Minister has all but resigned herself to losing a $100m Navy ship, which struck a reef, burned, then sank while the 75 on board made a daring escape in strong currents and waves off Samoa.
“This is a ship that, unfortunately, is pretty much gone,” Defence Minister Judith Collins told a press conference on Sunday, the night after HMNZS Manawanui commander Yvonne Gray issued an abandon ship order after the vessel hit a reef.
“This could have been a truly terrible day,” if there had been loss of life, Collins said. “But actually it is a bad day.”
The cause of the incident will go to a court of inquiry but Gray’s call is being credited by Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Garin Golding, as a life-saving decision.
It is great that there was no loss of life. A ship can be replaced, people can’t. However unless this was a freak accident, the crash and sinking was probably preventable and there will be great interest in the court of inquiry.
A guest post by Ewen McQueen, that the Herald refused to run:
Matthew Hooton wrote in the NZ Herald last week that “There’s no doubt that both Māori and Pākehā in 1840 understood tino rangatiratanga to be a bigger deal than kāwanatanga”.1 However whilst this is undoubtedly the modernist position on how we should interpret the Treaty, the historical evidence suggests something very different.
Article One of the Treaty states that the chiefs agreed to “give absolutely to the Queen of England forever, the complete Government (Kāwanatanga katoa) over their land”. This is the late Prof Sir Hugh Kawharu’s back-translation of the Māori text into English.2 Whilst many today prefer to ignore the strong and clear meaning of this Article, the chiefs in 1840 were under no such illusion. They quickly grasped the essence of what it meant. The British Crown would become the pre-eminent governing authority in these islands. Yes, their chieftainship over their lands and villages would be protected. But only within the context of the over-arching sovereignty of the Crown over all New Zealanders – including them.
How do we know this? Because they told us. We have historical accounts of the debate at Waitangi that record what various chiefs said. In particular William Colenso’s account is generally accepted as an accurate description of proceedings.3 It shows that the idea of coming under Crown authority was indeed a very big deal for the chiefs. In fact Kāwanatanga katoa was the prime focus of discussion and debate. And that little word katoa is an important clue as to why. It is rarely mentioned. But it means complete, all-encompassing, totally, without exception.4 It’s no wonder it focussed the minds of the chiefs on the issue of Crown authority.
Colenso’s notes showed many chiefs were initially reluctant to sign the Treaty, precisely because they understood it would establish an authority above theirs. Tareha replied to Hobson “We only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over. What! thou, a foreigner, up, and I down! No”.5 Another chief, Te Kemara, opposed the Treaty because it would mean “the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down”.6 Other chiefs expressed similar sentiments both at Waitangi and other locations around the country where the Treaty was signed. In the Hawkes Bay one chief, Te Hapuku, even drew a diagram showing the Queen above the chiefs.7
These chiefs clearly did not see the Article Two guarantee of tino rangatiratanga as allowing them to retain unqualified chieftainship or “absolute sovereignty”, as Hooton and the modernists suggest. And taunts from local Pākehā settlers that the Treaty would make them slaves certainly wouldn’t have encouraged that idea.
In the face of such taunts the chiefs sought counsel from trusted Pākehā advisors. The French Catholic missionary Pompallier was, unsurprisingly, not an enthusiastic advocate for the Treaty. However he advised the chiefs that the decision was up to them, and the key question was “whether it is preferable for you to recognize and obey a great European chief, rather than to live as you have lived until now”.8 Henry Williams, the Anglican missionary who translated the Treaty, met with many on the evening before the signing. He later wrote that he explained again the Treaty, clause by clause, and how it meant “they would become one people with the English… under one Sovereign, and one Law, human and divine”.9
Nowhere in the historical records do we find any indication that either the chiefs or the Pākehā protagonists understood anything other than that Kāwanatanga katoa meant the Crown was being established as the pre-eminent governing authority in the land. This was the key question under debate. This was what the chiefs had to agree to – or not. The significance or meaning of the Article Two guarantee of tino rangatiratanga hardly even featured in the proceedings. Of course it was important. But it wasn’t the main question at stake.
As it transpired, after initial reluctance and doubt, most chiefs agreed to the Treaty. They did so not because of assurances of “equal partnership”, but because they were persuaded of the benefits that Crown authority would bring. These included law and order, peace between tribes, and increased opportunity for trade. Tāmati Wāka Nene for instance acknowledged Hobson would become “our Governor” and urged him to remain as “a father, a judge, a peacemaker”.10 Many others likewise invited Hobson to stay as Governor for both Māori and Pākehā. One was Tāmati Pukututu who accepted Hobson as “a Governor for me, for us, for all.” 11
These statements clearly don’t fit with the modernist narrative that the chiefs only agreed to the Governor having authority over Pākehā. However they are the historical facts. Hooton and the modernists need to engage with them, rather than ignore them. They also need to stop offering shallow interpretations of Te Kawenata Hou (the Māori New Testament).
It is true that this document would have had significant influence on how the chiefs understood the Treaty. In the 1830s Christianity had been widely accepted among Māori. Tens of thousands of copies of Te Kawenata Hou had been printed, and were eagerly sought. Hooton would have us believe it contributed to the chiefs understanding of rangatiratanga as “absolute sovereignty”.
However in Te Kawenata Hou the term rangatira is a general term for leadership. In contrast kawana is a very specific term used to denote governors who represent the authority of kings. To use Hooton’s example of Pilate – as the kawana (governor) he represented the sovereignty of the Roman empire in Jerusalem. He had the authority to tax and to execute judgement. The local Jewish leaders who wanted Jesus crucified had to get his permission. Those leaders are described in Te Kawenata Hou as rangatira. From this the chiefs at Waitangi would have quickly understood what was being proposed in the Treaty. And it certainly did not involve them retaining “absolute sovereignty”.
As we debate the future of the Treaty in our constitution we need truth-telling about our history. The assertion that in 1840 the chiefs did not agree to Crown sovereignty being established over all New Zealanders does not reflect the historical evidence. It is certainly true that the Treaty affirmed chieftainship. But any discussion about how to implement that today needs to align with the original Treaty vision. That involved chieftainship under Crown sovereignty – not in place of it.
Ewen McQueen blogs at RenewNZ and is the author of “One Sun in the Sky: the untold story of sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi”
References
NZ Herald 13.09.24
The Herald reports:
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith authorised “every constable” in New Zealand to take Kim Dotcom into custody and detain him until he could be handed over to American officials, as part of ongoing efforts to deport him.
However, police have confirmed they won’t be “implementing surrender at this point” because Dotcom has since started judicial review proceedings.
The media are reporting this breathlessly as if this is something unusual, only done for Kim Dotcom.
I’m guessing, but I suspect the order is identical to every other extradition order. It is a standard part of extradition.
Thinking about it, it would be weird if an order didn’t authorise every constable. Would you expect the Minister to hand pick Constable Jones and Sergeant Brown?
So basically it is a non-story.
The usual suspects are up in arms because the Government diverted $30 million for teaching teachers te reo, to an initiative to teach students maths. This is the reality of government – you have to set priorities.
The Herald also notes:
Education Minister Erica Stanford said the Te Ahu o te Reo Māori initiative “isn’t accredited” and is more than double the cost of “similar courses” with a price tag of $100 million.
“An evaluation of the programme found no evidence it directly impacted progress and achievement for students.
“The review also couldn’t quantify what impact the programme had on te reo Māori use in the classroom.”
So the initiative defunded was not accredited, was twice the cost of others, did not improve student achievement and have no quantifiable impact on te reo use in the classroom.
She said 22% of Year 8 students are at the expected standard for maths and 12% of Year 8 Māori students are where they should be.
The Minister was referring to where students currently sit against the new curriculum set to be introduced.
“I am not prepared to look parents in the eye and allow the 60,000 kids starting school next year to be on a similar trajectory.”
And it is going to an area of critical importance, where almost four in five students are below where we need them to be.
Seems a no brainer to me.
So we have:
None of them good looks.
Liam Hehir sums them up:
Waka-jumping laws are fundamentally undemocratic and wrong—except when a coalition agreement forces us to support them, after which we will vote for their repeal to affirm our opposition, but then consider using them ourselves if a rogue MP becomes an embarrassment. We remain against them in principle, except in situations that demand practicality, which we will still oppose while acting upon them, so long as 75% of our members agree.
An excellent summary of their highly principled position.
A guest post by a reader:
On Tuesday 24 September I had the misfortune to watch Jenny-may Coffin interview the PM on the Government’s tighter guidelines for working from home in the public sector.
Let us count the ways in which this interview demonstrates the deeply facile and unbalanced nature of what passes for news and inquiry on TV1:
1. The whole interview bar one small snippet at the end was about WFH. Only in an organisation severely out-of-touch would this be the main subject of a chat with the PM. Normal folk have long since returned to work, recognise the right of the employer to have a view on such things and are getting on with life. It is not for them a matter which warrants this focus. The fact TVNZ gives it such attention says a lot about where it is at culturally. Maybe small matters like the Middle East, Ukraine, and the economy would have been more worthwhile subjects. Oh but I forgot, those subjects limit the opportunities to play gotcha.
2. The issue was posed as a matter of contrasting but equally legitimate claims within the employer/employee relationship. No regard for employment law. No regard for the commendable but discretionary flexibility of the public sector up to this point in allowing WFH. In brief no regard to onus when placing the matter in context.
3. The PM was requested to provide evidence for the merits of the change. Wrong question JM. See above points. Maybe you should have asked the PSA to attend and justify the benefits to the employer of WFH?
4. Note also the inherent laziness of this approach. Instead of me as a journalist or my producer getting online and researching the merits of WFH I will ask the PM to do it. If he has none then I have a gotcha. And if he does I have the equally compelling views of the unions to hit back with (see next point). Such rigour….
5. Repeating in an interview union and Labour Party talking points without interrogation is vacuous nonsense. What self-respecting journalist would simplistically suggest that only public sector redundancies are driving hospitality industry difficulties in Wellington and that WFH pays no part in the downturn? Good on the PM for reaching for the “rubbish” word he pulls out these days.
6. Nowhere in this interview or any interview done by JM or Daniel is evidence of the interviewer listening to answers. So feeble is their craft that the format is a list of prepared questions asked regardless of answers being elicited. It’s pathetic. By way of contrast it was a treat to hear John Campbell actually listening and thinking in a couple of interviews over the last month.
Is there no one at TVNZ who is sufficiently wired into the wider community to ask themselves whether their work touches the concerns and ideals of a glazier from Henderson, or a farmer from Southland, as much as a policy analyst from Miramar. Or perhaps the policy analysts are the only ones watching as they “work” from home?
If you felt life got worse in the last five years, you were not alone. The 2023 General Social Survey data lets us see the changes since 2018, and 2021. Changes are:
So after Labour’s wellbeing budget, fewer people had enough income to live on, more people had to cut back on fruit and vegetables, more people had poor health, fewer people felt safe at home or out and trust in other NZers fell.
Defence News reports:
The armed forces of New Zealand and Australia have swapped deputy commanders at their respective joint forces headquarters, signaling that they consider the defense of their nations an interconnected affair.
This is very significant. It signals how close Australia and NZ are, and how important it is to have interoperability.
The appointment of New Zealand Army officer Maj. Gen. Hugh McAslan is the highest-level senior posting of an officer from a foreign military into the Australian forces. The corresponding Australian appointment went to Army Brigadier Michael Bassingthwaighte.
So a NZ Officer will be the highest ranking foreign officer to serve in the Australian Defence Force.
New Zealand’s Defence Minister Judith Collins and Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles welcomed the appointments during the Oct. 2 South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting (SPDMM) in Auckland.
As China’s launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile into the South Pacific shows the increasingly fraught and dangerous strategic environment, it is reassuring to have Australia and NZ move closer together.
This chart uses data from the General Social Survey. As you can see trust in four vital government institutions increased slightly from 2016 to 2018. Since then it has plummeted for all four institutions. A movement of an entire point on a ten point scale is huge.
Parliament and Media have never ranked as highly. Trust in Parliament though rose from 2014 to 2021 but in the last two years dropped 0.8 points. Media trust was fairly constant from 2014 to 2018, but then the Government set up the Public Interest Journalism Fund and they have declined to a new low.