David Lillis: In Response to Stuff Limited

Catching up with the News

Like many New Zealanders, I catch up on New Zealand news through daily reading of Stuff online. Stuff’s website tells us that Stuff is the flagship website of Stuff Limited, New Zealand's leading media organization (Stuff, 2023).

Normally I enjoy articles and editorials by Andrea Vance. So - I was interested to read her recent piece in Stuff - Could the Treaty of Waitangi become the next casualty of populism? (Vance, 2023). Her article discusses the Act Party’s and Leader, David Seymour’s, position on co-governance and related issues. Andrea makes several bold assertions into the public domain, of course, that each deserves a response. Here, Andrea’s assertions are given in italics and my responses follow directly.

Assertions and Responses

David Seymour is riding the intense wave of national populism that has surged across other Western democracies – and given it a distinctly Kiwi flavour.

Having listened intently to David Seymour, he does not seem populist to me. Somewhat right of center - yes - but not inflammatory or divisive, unless one chooses to find it so. Is not Labour populist in its own way? How about the Māori Party (Te Pāti Māori), who rightly aim to support Māori people and whose stated ambitions are the assertion of mana motuhake, liberation of Māori and to advocate fiercely and always for the interests of whānau, Hapū and Iwi in Parliament and Government (Māori Party, 2023) – but who make little or no mention of the 83% of New Zealanders who are non-Māori, nor, for that matter, the 25% of New Zealanders who are non-Māori/non-European?

Indeed, David Seymour’s position on co-governance as undemocratic seems entirely reasonable to many. He says that he is in favor, as are others, of addressing unequal outcomes through various mechanisms, but believes in our hard-won democracy. Andrea - so do many others! Are all of them populist too?

Broadly, it [populism] reduces society to the people vs the elites. In ACT’s narrative, a left-wing and iwi ‘elite’ are imposing an undemocratic system of power into institutions that cannot be challenged.

Sadly, I think that David Seymour is correct. An undemocratic system is indeed being imposed - one that will inevitably confer greater political power to individuals and groups, purely on the basis of race. That is undemocratic. We support unreservedly the preservation and treasuring of the language and world view of the first inhabitants of New Zealand, but at present we are fighting to preserve the integrity of our education system from excessive intrusion of one particular form of traditional knowledge, to be taught as truth to all children of our country, regardless of background.

Why are our universities being forced to indigenize and their academic staff coerced to learn one minority language and world view, and teach that world view across most or all degree programs? How will any form of traditional knowledge enhance the delivery of a degree in electrical engineering, human biology or macroeconomics?

Andrea – exactly what contribution has any form of traditional knowledge made to modern solid-state physics, radio-astronomy, molecular chemistry, plant physiology or evolutionary biology? How about to modern statistical analysis, ocean dynamics, the creation of inorganic compounds or to the theory and practice of double-blind clinical trials?  

That we are forced to fight for the integrity of our science and co-equality and resourcing of our best science and our best scientists with traditional knowledge is beyond comprehension. We must also be very afraid of those who want traditional medicines to exist outside of health legislation. Have we taken leave of our senses in this country? Stuff Limited – think about it!

It [Act’s populism] shares a key component of right-wing populism: to denigrate others based on race, nationality, religion, sexual orientations or gender identity.

Andrea – indeed, right wing populism does exhibit such attributes. Left-wing populism often demonstrates opposite, but equally dangerous, attitudes in these domains. It is a purely personal view that left wing post-modern ideology poses greater danger if anti-science and relativist agendas take even greater hold on society than at present. However, I have listened intently to Act’s political views and read up on many of them. While I do not agree with absolutely everything in Act’s policies, I have not detected any semblance of denigration of others on the basis of race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. Unfortunately, these days we apply such accusations and related negative labels quite liberally and often very unfairly.

Seymour also adopted another hallmark: a demand that majorities prevail over the constitutional constraints and parliamentary complexities that have evolved in modern democracies, and over minority rights.

Where did David Seymour make such a demand?  Perhaps he did and I have not yet seen it, but where has he insisted that minority rights are to be marginalized? And, by the way – what exactly are those constitutional constraints and parliamentary complexities to which you refer?

Of course, democracy also enshrines free speech, and Seymour is entitled to question the extension of co-governance from the management of rivers, lakes and forests to public services and institutions (such as Māori wards in local councils, the creation of the Māori Health Authority, or Three Waters Reform).  

David Seymour is indeed entitled to question the extension of co-governance from the management of rivers, lakes and forests to public services and institutions. Many others question them too, while recognizing persistent inequalities across demographic groups in education, health and socio-economic outcomes. That is why in New Zealand today we see many initiatives designed to assist Māori, including various financial assistance; scholarships and other education-related incentives; financial support to help Māori landowners to build housing; preferential admission to medical school; Māori wards; heavily Treaty-centric, matauranga-Māori-based early childhood, primary and secondary education curricula; an increasingly Treaty-centric tertiary sector; a Treaty-centric and, apparently, bicultural, public service; naming of public institutions in Te Reo; funding of research on the basis of race and, of course, a dedicated health authority.

When will the Māori Party, the Labour Party and others recognize the above initiatives and other advances that have been made to rectify present inequalities or, for that matter, the good things that New Zealand offers to every citizen today, irrespective of race, religion or country of origin? We see prejudice, in-group/out-group attitudes, greed, ambition and, indeed, racism in every community, including minority communities, but when will we commit to addressing inequalities at their true sources – socioeconomic differences that underlie gaps in education and health, and both lifestyle choices and genetics that underpin disparities in health?

Stuff Limited – have we forgotten that other groups experience disadvantage too? For example, the socioeconomic wellbeing and health of Pacific People are worse across many indices than those of Māori, but when will Pacific People receive similar treatment to that of Māori?

Andrea – did you know that more people of European extraction experience poverty than Māori? So - let’s address all individuals and families most in need, rather than prioritizing on the basis of ethnic or cultural affiliation.

Already, we have seen ugly scenes as a ‘stop co-governance’ roadshow travelled the country.

It may be the case that ugly scenes have occurred at such road-shows, though those of us who were not present may never know the exact details. If true, then what has occurred is very regrettable indeed and future repetitions of such scenes must not be tolerated. A countervailing view, not reported widely in our media, is that the disruption at the Stop Co-governance meetings has arisen from protestors attempting to prevent the speakers from being heard. In any case, many ordinary New Zealanders believe that co-governance must be stopped because it is undemocratic. Though imperfect, our democracy was hard-won and must be protected.

ACT’s policy is a gross oversimplification of complex issues. The party’s understanding and Euro-centric interpretation of the Treaty has already been called into question by academics.

Probably, every party oversimplifies the political, historic and social issues. Is ACT’s interpretation Euro-centric? Possibly so, but isn’t it conceivable that the majority of us simply want one-person-one-vote, equal decision-making power at the level of the individual on matters of national interest, and equality of opportunity?

Should ACT genuinely wish to have a conversation about Te Tiriti’s role in Aotearoa, there are better, less blunt and binary ways, to do it. One mechanism could be a Royal Commission, or a Parliamentary inquiry.

Stuff Limited – we defend your right, and the right of others, to name our country as you choose, but we do hope that you accept that many people wish to refer to our country by its correct legal name. In addition, your suggestions of a Royal Commission or a Parliamentary inquiry seem very sensible and deserve further discussion.

With an insidious, but deniable, subtext, ACT is asking another question: one that allows its supporters voice their unhappiness about something else entirely.

Andrea – I have noted nothing insidious about ACT’s policies. And what is this other question? What is that something else?

Postscript

Some feedback to Stuff Limited - New Zealanders want and deserve objective media that they can trust. Though I too read your online news every day and enjoy much of it, like many others, I take with a grain of salt your reporting of New Zealand and world political news, especially that which pertains to race because, quite frankly, you have adopted an extremely partisan, left-wing agenda so that it has become quite impossible for ordinary people to know what to believe and what not to believe.

Andrea and Stuff Limited - last election I voted Labour, but will not make that mistake again. In truth, I approve in general terms of their handling of COVID and I share many of Labour’s concerns about climate change, but so much else has been very damaging and divisive.

Thank you for your article. Up to now I had not considered voting Act very deeply but now, after reading your article, I may well do so.

References

Māori Party (2023).  https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/
Stuff (2023). About Stuff.  https://www.stuff.co.nz/about-stuff
Vance, Andrea (2023). Could the Treaty of Waitangi become the next casualty of populism? 
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/132499752/could-the-treaty-of-waitangi-become-the-next-casualty-of-populism

Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.