Prof Joanna Kidman was appointed as the director of the He Whenua Taurikura, the Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism, funded by the Department of Cabinet and Prime Minister (DPMC). But in posting colourful critiques of politicians this week, she has brought on questions about her suitability for the role of reducing extremism in society. This minor scandal also provides a useful case study about the rising political temperatures in New Zealand politics at the moment.
Kidman’s provocative tweet
The post that Kidman made should be read in full: “There is so much evidence that military-style youth boot camps don’t work and are expensive, that I can only assume that this government hates children, most of whom will be poor and brown. Plus, it wants to snatch children’s lunches. Is this a government or a death-cult?”
Government minister and Act Party leader David Seymour has reacted strongly, questioning whether Kidman is therefore an appropriate person to direct the government-funded anti-extremism programme: “If she wants to get into a rational debate about what to do with youth offenders, for example, we are very happy to have that debate. That level of name-calling is not actually advancing the debate. It is actually advancing a more divided society which is, ironically, the opposite of what she’s supposed to be about.”
Seymour also says the incident raises questions about whether the output of Kidman’s government programme is creating value for money. Since 2022 it’s been funded with $2.15m a year.
Similarly, the Act Party has put out a statement saying, “The irony of an anti-extremism campaigner using such extreme rhetoric should be obvious”. For the best coverage of this, see the Herald article by Benjamin Plummer and Raphael Franks: Professor Joanna Kidman says coalition Government might be a ‘death cult’, David Seymour calls for resignation of anti-extremism centre director
Kidman’s programme, He Whenua Taurikura, was also set up with another academic co-director, Prof Paul Spoonley. But the above article reveals that he “is no longer a director” – which hadn’t previously been reported – and that Spoonley “did not wish to comment”.
Should government advisers and academics be allowed to abuse politicians?
The attack on the Government raises freedom of speech issues. Particularly in terms of academic freedom, because Kidman is also an academic and her government anti-extremism programme is housed at Victoria University of Wellington. And today the Free Speech Union has come out to defend Kidman’s right as an academic to say what she thinks of the government.
The union’s chief executive Jonathan Ayling went on RNZ’s Morning Report to say that Kidman’s academic rights should be defended – especially by her university. He says that it is different, however, in terms of Kidman job as a paid adviser to the Government – which means that the state might expect some sort of professional neutrality, much like from a public servant – see: Free speech advocate on professors social media posts
The DPMC has put out a statement, effectively pushing the issue onto Kidman’s direct employer, the Victoria University of Wellington: “the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has conveyed to the university via the Trust its concerns that Professor Kidman's comments may bring the centre into disrepute” – see RNZ’s Victoria University professor spoken to about anti-government social media post
The University itself has made it clear that it doesn’t back Kidman’s post, saying that the tweet “does not support an inclusive conversation”. So, was Kidman’s tweet out of order for an academic?
According to political scientist Grant Duncan, it was, and he says it has damaged the reputation of Kidman’s anti-extremism programme. He writes today: “Prof Kidman let herself down, as an academic, by resorting to an ad hominem attack… I can’t defend the professor, as her words strayed from academic standards. Of course she’s free, by law, to say what she likes, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences for her academic reputation” – see: Freedom of political expression: a week of it
Kidman’s tweet, however, wasn’t exactly out of the ordinary for the type of debate that occurs on social media. And Kidman herself had a long history of feisty public exchanges on Twitter before Jacinda Ardern appointed her to the prestigious role. It certainly can’t have come as a surprise to anyone associated with employing her – Kidman had long fought strongly online for her causes, especially in terms of Māori sovereignty.
Kidman has also previously been outspoken on the problem of rising political polarisation, and has strongly condemned the public abuse that is directed at politicians. She spoke out recently, saying that such abuse and the targeting of politicians “absolutely, totally” puts some people off politics. She has said, “There are very strong signals being given and it is it does have a really chilling effect because it does ultimately risk making parliament a less diverse place” – see Anna Whyte’s article in The Post: ‘More work to do’ on Parliament’s culture, says PM (paywalled)
The professor was commenting on the abuse that was said to have contributed to Green MP Golriz Ghahraman’s downfall over alleged shoplifting. Kidman explained that politicians have it hard because there isn’t enough support for politicians that are targeted for abuse, from within and outside Parliament, saying: “It is still a shitshow, it's still a really difficult environment to navigate.”
Rising temperatures in politics
The Kidman story epitomises the fact that politics in New Zealand continues to heat up, in a way that is threatening social cohesion. For example, in reporting on Kidman’s tweet, the Herald also drew attention to another academic taking on the Government with strong language: “It is the second social media spat involving Seymour after earlier this week, he and Health Coalition Aotearoa co-chair Professor Lisa Te Morenga exchanged personal barbs over the Government’s free school lunches programme. Te Morenga said she viewed the coalition as a ‘fascist white supremacist Government’, while Seymour said she had ‘anger management problems’.”
Sportspeople are also joining the dissent against the new Government. In the opening match of the women’s Super Rugby Aupiki season, the Hurricanes team performed a haka on Saturday that called for the Treaty to be retained, and denounced the Government with the chants of “karetao o te Kāwana kakiwhero” – which translates as “puppets of this redneck government” – see Stuff’s Winston Peters tackles Hurricanes Poua over ‘redneck government’ haka
In response, Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan has essentially argued it’s another case of “Go woke, go broke”, saying that it should be the prerogative of the women rugby players to politicise their team and make strong statements about the government, but they shouldn’t be surprised if they alienate large parts of their audience – see: Super Rugby cannot afford to lose more money
The broadcaster says that although there’s been a recent fashion for corporates to go “woke” to sell products, the tide seems to have turned on this: “For ages, there was a time where brands could get away with being a bit wokey for a bit of street cred… But not anymore… Consumers who don’t like the wokey stuff have started punishing brands for it. So quite rightly, the rugby bosses want to stay right out of politics and not annoy either side- and who can blame them?”
However, haka has a long history of being used for political purposes – see Michael Cugley’s Hurricanes Poua haka just the latest in a long tradition of protest haka. And for a very good account of sport and politics mixing together, see RNZ’s Hurricanes haka: A brief history of protests in sport
Finally, does all this reflect that the country is becoming more divided? Numerous survey results suggest that division is indeed occurring. For the last opinion poll on this question, see Essential Research’s polling question: “Do you think Do you think New Zealand is becoming more or less divided?”. When the public was asked this in September, only 3 per cent said the country was becoming less divided, and 77 per cent said New Zealand was becoming more divided.
Dr Bryce Edwards is a politics lecturer at Victoria University and director of Critical Politics, a project focused on researching New Zealand politics and society. This article was first published HERE
The post that Kidman made should be read in full: “There is so much evidence that military-style youth boot camps don’t work and are expensive, that I can only assume that this government hates children, most of whom will be poor and brown. Plus, it wants to snatch children’s lunches. Is this a government or a death-cult?”
Government minister and Act Party leader David Seymour has reacted strongly, questioning whether Kidman is therefore an appropriate person to direct the government-funded anti-extremism programme: “If she wants to get into a rational debate about what to do with youth offenders, for example, we are very happy to have that debate. That level of name-calling is not actually advancing the debate. It is actually advancing a more divided society which is, ironically, the opposite of what she’s supposed to be about.”
Seymour also says the incident raises questions about whether the output of Kidman’s government programme is creating value for money. Since 2022 it’s been funded with $2.15m a year.
Similarly, the Act Party has put out a statement saying, “The irony of an anti-extremism campaigner using such extreme rhetoric should be obvious”. For the best coverage of this, see the Herald article by Benjamin Plummer and Raphael Franks: Professor Joanna Kidman says coalition Government might be a ‘death cult’, David Seymour calls for resignation of anti-extremism centre director
Kidman’s programme, He Whenua Taurikura, was also set up with another academic co-director, Prof Paul Spoonley. But the above article reveals that he “is no longer a director” – which hadn’t previously been reported – and that Spoonley “did not wish to comment”.
Should government advisers and academics be allowed to abuse politicians?
The attack on the Government raises freedom of speech issues. Particularly in terms of academic freedom, because Kidman is also an academic and her government anti-extremism programme is housed at Victoria University of Wellington. And today the Free Speech Union has come out to defend Kidman’s right as an academic to say what she thinks of the government.
The union’s chief executive Jonathan Ayling went on RNZ’s Morning Report to say that Kidman’s academic rights should be defended – especially by her university. He says that it is different, however, in terms of Kidman job as a paid adviser to the Government – which means that the state might expect some sort of professional neutrality, much like from a public servant – see: Free speech advocate on professors social media posts
The DPMC has put out a statement, effectively pushing the issue onto Kidman’s direct employer, the Victoria University of Wellington: “the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has conveyed to the university via the Trust its concerns that Professor Kidman's comments may bring the centre into disrepute” – see RNZ’s Victoria University professor spoken to about anti-government social media post
The University itself has made it clear that it doesn’t back Kidman’s post, saying that the tweet “does not support an inclusive conversation”. So, was Kidman’s tweet out of order for an academic?
According to political scientist Grant Duncan, it was, and he says it has damaged the reputation of Kidman’s anti-extremism programme. He writes today: “Prof Kidman let herself down, as an academic, by resorting to an ad hominem attack… I can’t defend the professor, as her words strayed from academic standards. Of course she’s free, by law, to say what she likes, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences for her academic reputation” – see: Freedom of political expression: a week of it
Kidman’s tweet, however, wasn’t exactly out of the ordinary for the type of debate that occurs on social media. And Kidman herself had a long history of feisty public exchanges on Twitter before Jacinda Ardern appointed her to the prestigious role. It certainly can’t have come as a surprise to anyone associated with employing her – Kidman had long fought strongly online for her causes, especially in terms of Māori sovereignty.
Kidman has also previously been outspoken on the problem of rising political polarisation, and has strongly condemned the public abuse that is directed at politicians. She spoke out recently, saying that such abuse and the targeting of politicians “absolutely, totally” puts some people off politics. She has said, “There are very strong signals being given and it is it does have a really chilling effect because it does ultimately risk making parliament a less diverse place” – see Anna Whyte’s article in The Post: ‘More work to do’ on Parliament’s culture, says PM (paywalled)
The professor was commenting on the abuse that was said to have contributed to Green MP Golriz Ghahraman’s downfall over alleged shoplifting. Kidman explained that politicians have it hard because there isn’t enough support for politicians that are targeted for abuse, from within and outside Parliament, saying: “It is still a shitshow, it's still a really difficult environment to navigate.”
Rising temperatures in politics
The Kidman story epitomises the fact that politics in New Zealand continues to heat up, in a way that is threatening social cohesion. For example, in reporting on Kidman’s tweet, the Herald also drew attention to another academic taking on the Government with strong language: “It is the second social media spat involving Seymour after earlier this week, he and Health Coalition Aotearoa co-chair Professor Lisa Te Morenga exchanged personal barbs over the Government’s free school lunches programme. Te Morenga said she viewed the coalition as a ‘fascist white supremacist Government’, while Seymour said she had ‘anger management problems’.”
Sportspeople are also joining the dissent against the new Government. In the opening match of the women’s Super Rugby Aupiki season, the Hurricanes team performed a haka on Saturday that called for the Treaty to be retained, and denounced the Government with the chants of “karetao o te Kāwana kakiwhero” – which translates as “puppets of this redneck government” – see Stuff’s Winston Peters tackles Hurricanes Poua over ‘redneck government’ haka
In response, Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan has essentially argued it’s another case of “Go woke, go broke”, saying that it should be the prerogative of the women rugby players to politicise their team and make strong statements about the government, but they shouldn’t be surprised if they alienate large parts of their audience – see: Super Rugby cannot afford to lose more money
The broadcaster says that although there’s been a recent fashion for corporates to go “woke” to sell products, the tide seems to have turned on this: “For ages, there was a time where brands could get away with being a bit wokey for a bit of street cred… But not anymore… Consumers who don’t like the wokey stuff have started punishing brands for it. So quite rightly, the rugby bosses want to stay right out of politics and not annoy either side- and who can blame them?”
However, haka has a long history of being used for political purposes – see Michael Cugley’s Hurricanes Poua haka just the latest in a long tradition of protest haka. And for a very good account of sport and politics mixing together, see RNZ’s Hurricanes haka: A brief history of protests in sport
Finally, does all this reflect that the country is becoming more divided? Numerous survey results suggest that division is indeed occurring. For the last opinion poll on this question, see Essential Research’s polling question: “Do you think Do you think New Zealand is becoming more or less divided?”. When the public was asked this in September, only 3 per cent said the country was becoming less divided, and 77 per cent said New Zealand was becoming more divided.
Dr Bryce Edwards is a politics lecturer at Victoria University and director of Critical Politics, a project focused on researching New Zealand politics and society. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
Kidman: A moron appointed by a moron. And by the way Bryce, where were your erudite articles on "rising toxicity in politics" in the period 2017-2023?
There is a difference between respectful informed free speech and nasty emotive trouble making. A university professor should know that.
Unfortunately, it’s clear that New Zealand is becoming more politically and socially divided. Kidman’s gutter-speech is the sort of thing that is exacerbating this trend.
Along with te reo being forced on us in the English-language media and, for some of us, at our workplaces.
Along with many of us being told our forebears were colonial oppressors in their introduction of democratic government and a constitution in which all people would have equal standing in an advanced polity rather than tribes.
Along with being told certain people should have priority medical access merely because of their special ethnicity, but it wouldn’t affect medical services for those of less-special ethnicity. Like we can’t do the maths.
Along with a vague “tikanga” being imposed within the law courts, in effect a basic constitutional change occurring surreptitiously and without the electorate’s agreement.
Along with disturbing trends in New Zealand academia that perpetrate historical distortion and lies.
And so on and so on.
It’s hardly surprising that most New Zealanders from the centre left to centre right are fed up. My worry is that the appalling ideology of the extreme left will breed an extreme right reaction. My hope is most New Zealanders will take a deep breath, say “enough is enough” and return to reasonable, reasoned politics and social discourse.
LFC
The last poll you reference, Bryce, on how divided NZ is was taken in September. Cast your mind back. Labour were still in power. Perhaps that had something to do with it and perhaps that's why Labour got resoundingly rejected by the electorate?
Kidman's organisation, well the second-tier English name, begins The Centre for Research Excellence....
What it should actually read is The Centre for Left-wing only Research Excellence...
Which, as we all know, means no excellence at all!
She should be sacked and then she can freely spread her views as much as she wants.
Free speech doesn't have to be reasoned or respectful, if it did - it wouldn't be free. But there are always consequences and in this case she has clearly demonstrated she is not fit for the role she is employed for, so she should be fired.
I like the idea that these people can say what they want when they like. They alone are responsible for the twaddle that becomes more unreal and arrogantly communicated as they are given more air. These people are special, at least as they themselves see it, and they eventually self-destruct. The rest of us can at that point, have a cracking good laugh. Why is it that I have had a few laughs over the past 12 months or so?
A 'top'university academic ... says who?
Post a Comment