Right facts, wrong conclusions
Matthew Hooton’s recent article for The NZ Herald, “Treaty Principles Bill submissions received, but there are issues leaving race debate in dust,” delivers accurate polling data but we disagree with his conclusion.
He suggests that the Treaty debate is only a distant concern for voters, but his interpretation may be ignoring the broader relevance of these issues to the political and social landscape.
More than just the Treaty Principles Bill
Hooton’s argument hinges on data from a recent Curia poll, which groups “Māori/Treaty” issues together. While the Treaty Principles Bill might not rank as a top concern, this category encompasses much more than the bill itself. Governance, health, and social division are all intertwined with Māori/Treaty issues, making their impact far-reaching, even if indirectly.
Treating the Treaty Principles Bill as an isolated issue fails to recognise its role as part of a larger puzzle affecting New Zealanders.
Hooton’s argument hinges on data from a recent Curia poll, which groups “Māori/Treaty” issues together. While the Treaty Principles Bill might not rank as a top concern, this category encompasses much more than the bill itself. Governance, health, and social division are all intertwined with Māori/Treaty issues, making their impact far-reaching, even if indirectly.
Treating the Treaty Principles Bill as an isolated issue fails to recognise its role as part of a larger puzzle affecting New Zealanders.
The growing importance of Māori/Treaty issues
It’s worth noting that public concern for Māori/Treaty issues has surged. Previously outside the top 10, these concerns now rank fourth among voters’ priorities in the most recent survey—above Law & Order, Education, and the Environment. This shift reflects a growing awareness and engagement, even if sometimes it is not obvious when looking at the data.
Curia’s additional data provides further insight. While rankings force voters to prioritise only their top three concerns, a broader rating system paints a different picture.
When respondents scored issues on a scale of 1 to 10, eight issues received scores of 8/10 or higher. This suggests voters are grappling with a wide range of serious issues, and the Treaty debate is undoubtedly intertwined within this landscape.
Flaws in ranking systems
Relative rankings, like those used by Curia and IPSOS, often fail to capture the full picture. By focusing on only the top three concerns, these polls suppress visibility of “mid-tier” issues that might still hold significant weight for voters.
For example, concerns about inflation, healthcare, and the Treaty may all rank high in voters’ minds but not make the cut in a strict ranking system.
A deeper look at public engagement
Beyond polling data, the scale of public involvement in the Treaty debate is notable. The unprecedented 300,000 plus submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill— at least three times the previous record for any legislation in New Zealand—show that this is an important issue to Kiwis.
Te Pāti Māori’s large-scale hikoi and widespread media coverage reinforce this. While Hooton’s point about fringe voices making noise has merit, the unprecedented public engagement suggests deeper, widespread concern about the bill’s broader implications.
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
“Is the Treaty debate bigger than statistics suggest”?
Lies, dam lies and statistics tells you all you need to know.
It comes down to the “truth of the treaty” recognizing the original Maori language treaty, the official 1869 back translation of the original and Busby’s final draft used to compose the original, which spells out we are now one people versus the “lie of the treaty”, using Freemans English version of the treaty (which does not agree with the original), Kawhura’s attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation of the Maori text, and the principles and partnership fallacy that arose from trying to marry these two frauds together, which spells out apartheid.
Of course it is. .... those against must be getting nervous so play it down.
It only appears on the surface as if "fringe" voices are the only ones concerned with racial issues. I would suggest many New Zealanders have no idea how deeply intertwined these issues are in their day to day living. If they had a business which missed out on a contract because they were not of a certain race, or crucial healthcare for the same reasons they would certainly sit up and take notice. I see the criteria for oral submissions will be decided by all the parties in parliament. One wonders why National and NZF do not believe in democracy.
What else would you expect from the Herald, and certainly anything coming from Hooton’s pen needs to be taken with a great deal of skepticism – just ask Don Brash?
Yes, the cost of living and the economy rank at the top of most of our concerns, but if the general public had any real appreciation (no thanks to the Fourth Estate’s deliberate aversion to exposing same) how much the Treaty and related Maori consultation was truly costing the nation in productivity and actual direct and indirect costs at all levels (including both Central & Local Govt, corporates, private businesses and individuals) there would be considerably more concern to the point of outrage. That “Maori” concerns still rate fourth on that poll, given the lack of attention these costs are given and/or directly met and felt by most, is remarkable.
The Centrist is right, and Hooton couldn’t be more wrong - but then, that's hardly a surprise.
Extraordinary - Key used to terrify people with predictions of racial unrest unless appeasement succeeds in keeping this at bay. Now Hooton suggests there are far more important issues to discuss than a society based on racial superiority.
Anything but support for a rational and mature debate on citizen equality and democracy as the basis for NZ's continued status as a first world nation. Time to face facts: this debate is long overdue.
The poll topic Maori/Treaty issues is too mild. If it referred to Maori domination and control, maorification, maori favouritism or some such would get a less placid response. The wider public (and apparently Luxom) is still woefully unaware of the general situation. All are bombarded with soft soap pro maori propaganda. Major national institutions such as RNZ are devoted to. Very very few commentators are sufficiently bold and reckless to risk robust and straight observation on maori issues. Apart from simple cancellation, devastating in itself, there is a vast monied maori empire always likely to ruin them with legal expenses. Prominent figures are especially mindful of the number of deranged brainwashed potentially violent pro maori nutters, hugely encouraged by wild Te Pati pattern language, loose out there. Meanwhile largely poorly educated maori are bombarded with extravagant pro maori propaganda little of which can withstand close scrutiny and which receives almost none, and certainly none in their circles. Very few of public now read newspapers; they just glance through the summary headlines. The msm generally refuses to carry direct criticism of matters maori, yet publishes unquestioned the rantings of Packer, Moxon, Motu, Sykes and every other wildly outspoken trace maori. The by maori for maori mantra ensures that maori are well fed with propaganda and shielded from criticism of and other outsider views. The soft msm deludes many into thinking that endless maori involvement and consultation will lead to harmonious betterment for all.
And as for the Treaty Principles submissions, division into maori sourced and non maori sourced submissions would be helpful. Maori have the vast insurgency coordination network united through state subsisided marae, govt employments, TV and RNZ, national events (kapa haka etc), regular protracted wide encompassing gatherings for funerals etc. All conducive to mass orchestrated response. Not difficult to arrange a submission in the name of near every trrce maori, real and contrived. Industrious productive non maori simply do not have the interconnection and spare time, scope for false addresses etc.. Mass common submissiosn will be disproportionately maori sourced.Many submissions will be copied and many common maori sourced identifiable, but it is unlikley the analysis will be attempted.
About this time next year, this discussion will be really gearing up (election year) When it does, Hooten and his arrogant fellow journalists will be ducking for cover
Post a Comment