At times it’s impossible not to wonder whether some of National’s ministers — and the Prime Minister — have early-onset Alzheimer’s. It is as if they have found themselves in government but can’t remember exactly how they got there and why they won.
They often seem to forget that their success in 2023’s election was due in no small part to the impression they gave that their party was opposed to race-based policies generally — beyond simply repealing Three Waters and disestablishing the Maori Health Authority.
When pushed on “Maorification”, Christopher Luxon will sometimes make the right noises. Asked in May about a job for a tikanga lead advertised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, he told Mike Hosking’s Newstalk ZB programme that National would “call out” Maorification wherever they saw it. He cited removing traffic control stop-go signs in te reo in the Hawke’s Bay as proof.
“We need the stop-go signs to be very unambiguous,” Luxon said. “We want everybody in the public service focused on delivery, focused on results, and not lots of resources tied up in things that isn’t core business. Where it comes out and they get it wrong, we’re very quick to clamp down on it.”
But for many his spiel would have seemed an unconvincing assertion of National’s dedication to the task. Jobs advertised by the Public Service Commission are still regularly littered with passages and words in te reo. A recent ad for a policy advisor for deaf children, for instance, requires “The ability to understand and apply the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi | The Treaty of Waitangi and tangatawhenuatanga.”
More significantly, National’s legislative programme is a mish-mash of attempts to rein in the extension of Māori influence in law and policy as well as initiatives that do the exact opposite. It could be summed up — perhaps generously — as “two steps forward, one step back.”
As a consequence, it is very difficult for voters to get a fix on National’s position overall. Where ministers stand on the issue of race-based policy often seems to depend on their individual preferences.
In July, in her amendment bill, Education minister Erica Stanford didn’t seize the opportunity to remove the existing Treaty clauses in the Education and Training Act 2020. And she rejigged the most prominent reference to the Treaty to make it look as if she had reduced its status when she hadn’t. She also told Parliament in April that “giving effect to Te Tiriti is essential and key to support student achievement”.
This will come as little surprise to those who see Stanford as leaning towards “progressive” views on such issues but what has surprised many is that last December Judith Collins introduced the Gene Technology Bill that includes a bizarre genuflection to the Treaty in creating a Māori Advisory Committee focused on tikanga and mātauranga Māori (in science legislation no less!).
The extent of the committee’s proposed powers are yet to be tested when (and if) the bill becomes law but it has been described as enabling co-governance via the back door.
On the other hand, last year Chris Bishop announced the Cabinet had approved dropping the “generic Treaty clause” in the replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act 1991. RMA reform was a key plank in the National Party’s election manifesto (and part of its coalition agreement with Act).
National has also driven changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 that dramatically tighten the rules allowing iwi and hapū to gain Customary Marine Title (CMT) to the coast.
Most voters — if they know anything much at all about the amendments to the 2011 law — will probably understand the changes were sparked by NZ First’s coalition agreement with National to clarify the test for customary title outlined in section 58 of the legislation.
However, Treaty Negotiations and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has gone well beyond the terms of that agreement by overturning court decisions made since July last year that have granted CMT to 280km of New Zealand’s coastline. Any CMT orders granted between that date and the amendment act becoming law must be reheard under the new test.
Not only has the importance of tikanga in formulating court decisions been significantly reduced but the burden of proof for fulfilling the tests in s58 — ie, that the iwi / hapū applicant group “holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga; and has, in relation to the specified area, exclusively used and occupied it from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption” — has been shifted entirely to them.
And in September, Goldsmith warned the judiciary the government is willing to further legislate “over the top” of other court decisions that rely on concepts such as tikanga and Treaty obligations in order to maintain legal clarity.
Yet in the very same week Goldsmith issued his warning to the courts about tikanga, Finance minister Nicola Willis made an astonishing admission during a session for business leaders as part of the NZ Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom survey.
Asked if National had been able to “govern alone, or close to it, what would you have done differently?”, she replied, “I think you would have seen less focus on Māori-related issues.”
She classed this as “a bold but blunt assessment”.
Blunt and bold, perhaps, but also unwise. If anything is going to boost the votes of NZ First and Act — and keep National’s share of the centre-right vote low — it is an admission by a senior minister that National is not fully committed to opposing Maorification.
Far too often, National’s left hand doesn’t appear to know what the right hand is doing. Tama Potaka claimed in March not to know that the generic Treaty clause in the RMA had disappeared in the replacement law spearheaded by Chris Bishop. This despite the fact he is the Minister for Māori Development and — as Bishop pointed out — sits in the Cabinet that approved the change.
Given the conflicting stances taken by National’s senior ministers, the party’s supporters have very good reason to feel confused as they struggle to decipher where it stands. Many have become resentful that it has not always fulfilled the expectations regarding Maorification they formed during the 2023 election campaign.
It’s true that the new coalition government quickly overturned Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority as promised, but many voters expected it to carry on with the same enthusiasm with which it had begun its term in office.
It is extremely difficult to understand why National’s strategists don’t appear to grasp how much of its support depends on the party continuing that initial push — and advertising it.
Perhaps this failure stems from the mistake of looking at polls that list the issues voters are most concerned about and assuming that topics such as race relations and Māori issues that don’t fill the top spots aren’t very important.
In fact, voters often care very strongly about issues ranked lower in a list, even if their immediate concerns about the cost of living, inflation, housing and health are rated higher.
Instinctual politicians like Winston Peters understand this. As, of course, does Donald Trump. Voter surveys that included transgender issues would never have told the US President that his campaign should pour tens of millions into an advertisement near election day that said simply: “Kamala Harris is for they/them. Trump is for you.”
It was devastatingly effective, and is widely credited for boosting Trump’s final election tally.
Voters are rarely left in any doubt where Winston Peters and David Seymour stand on the issue of Maorification — whether it is pushing back on te reo in public services and passports or the issue of the foreshore and seabed. And they are quick to claim the credit.
After the referendums on Māori wards were held last month, Seymour pointed out on social media: “[Act] campaigned for and won the right for communities to vote on Māori wards. While it is sad that 17 communities voted to keep race-based seats, 25 communities voted to remove them. That’s 25 communities where the council tried to divide the electorate by race, and the people rejected it.”
Luxon has recently taken to social media to remind the public that National has pushed back hard against gangs and has significantly reduced the number of ram raids and victims of violent crime, and to trumpet trade deals. But he has done nothing similar to advertise the steps National has taken against Maorification.
An obvious example is the lack of fanfare after the MACA amendment bill passed its third reading last month. National didn’t even put out a press release boasting about its role in protecting the rights of all New Zealanders to the coastline.
Unfortunately, Luxon has squandered any credibility he might have had on these issues. When he was asked by The Platform’s Sean Plunket at a post-Cabinet press conference last November what he liked or disliked about David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, he replied: “There isn’t anything I like.”
It was an extraordinarily dismissive response given that one of the bill’s aims was to establish equal rights before the law for all New Zealanders irrespective of race. With his abrupt dismissal, Luxon effectively sided with the Toitū te Tiriti protesters who had marched on Parliament.
As a result of National’s disconnected and contradictory approach to Maorification, few — rightly or wrongly — expect much of substance to be achieved by Goldsmith’s promised review of Treaty clauses in legislation.
In fact, it is probably far too late for Luxon and National to take a credible and unequivocal stand opposing co-governance and Maorification in the run-up to next year’s election.
The party will just have to stand by and watch votes bleed to David Seymour and Winston Peters as they make such opposition a key and credible part of their pitch to voters.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was sourced HERE
When pushed on “Maorification”, Christopher Luxon will sometimes make the right noises. Asked in May about a job for a tikanga lead advertised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, he told Mike Hosking’s Newstalk ZB programme that National would “call out” Maorification wherever they saw it. He cited removing traffic control stop-go signs in te reo in the Hawke’s Bay as proof.
“We need the stop-go signs to be very unambiguous,” Luxon said. “We want everybody in the public service focused on delivery, focused on results, and not lots of resources tied up in things that isn’t core business. Where it comes out and they get it wrong, we’re very quick to clamp down on it.”
But for many his spiel would have seemed an unconvincing assertion of National’s dedication to the task. Jobs advertised by the Public Service Commission are still regularly littered with passages and words in te reo. A recent ad for a policy advisor for deaf children, for instance, requires “The ability to understand and apply the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi | The Treaty of Waitangi and tangatawhenuatanga.”
More significantly, National’s legislative programme is a mish-mash of attempts to rein in the extension of Māori influence in law and policy as well as initiatives that do the exact opposite. It could be summed up — perhaps generously — as “two steps forward, one step back.”
As a consequence, it is very difficult for voters to get a fix on National’s position overall. Where ministers stand on the issue of race-based policy often seems to depend on their individual preferences.
In July, in her amendment bill, Education minister Erica Stanford didn’t seize the opportunity to remove the existing Treaty clauses in the Education and Training Act 2020. And she rejigged the most prominent reference to the Treaty to make it look as if she had reduced its status when she hadn’t. She also told Parliament in April that “giving effect to Te Tiriti is essential and key to support student achievement”.
This will come as little surprise to those who see Stanford as leaning towards “progressive” views on such issues but what has surprised many is that last December Judith Collins introduced the Gene Technology Bill that includes a bizarre genuflection to the Treaty in creating a Māori Advisory Committee focused on tikanga and mātauranga Māori (in science legislation no less!).
The extent of the committee’s proposed powers are yet to be tested when (and if) the bill becomes law but it has been described as enabling co-governance via the back door.
On the other hand, last year Chris Bishop announced the Cabinet had approved dropping the “generic Treaty clause” in the replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act 1991. RMA reform was a key plank in the National Party’s election manifesto (and part of its coalition agreement with Act).
National has also driven changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 that dramatically tighten the rules allowing iwi and hapū to gain Customary Marine Title (CMT) to the coast.
Most voters — if they know anything much at all about the amendments to the 2011 law — will probably understand the changes were sparked by NZ First’s coalition agreement with National to clarify the test for customary title outlined in section 58 of the legislation.
However, Treaty Negotiations and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has gone well beyond the terms of that agreement by overturning court decisions made since July last year that have granted CMT to 280km of New Zealand’s coastline. Any CMT orders granted between that date and the amendment act becoming law must be reheard under the new test.
Not only has the importance of tikanga in formulating court decisions been significantly reduced but the burden of proof for fulfilling the tests in s58 — ie, that the iwi / hapū applicant group “holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga; and has, in relation to the specified area, exclusively used and occupied it from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption” — has been shifted entirely to them.
And in September, Goldsmith warned the judiciary the government is willing to further legislate “over the top” of other court decisions that rely on concepts such as tikanga and Treaty obligations in order to maintain legal clarity.
Yet in the very same week Goldsmith issued his warning to the courts about tikanga, Finance minister Nicola Willis made an astonishing admission during a session for business leaders as part of the NZ Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom survey.
Asked if National had been able to “govern alone, or close to it, what would you have done differently?”, she replied, “I think you would have seen less focus on Māori-related issues.”
She classed this as “a bold but blunt assessment”.
Blunt and bold, perhaps, but also unwise. If anything is going to boost the votes of NZ First and Act — and keep National’s share of the centre-right vote low — it is an admission by a senior minister that National is not fully committed to opposing Maorification.
Far too often, National’s left hand doesn’t appear to know what the right hand is doing. Tama Potaka claimed in March not to know that the generic Treaty clause in the RMA had disappeared in the replacement law spearheaded by Chris Bishop. This despite the fact he is the Minister for Māori Development and — as Bishop pointed out — sits in the Cabinet that approved the change.
Given the conflicting stances taken by National’s senior ministers, the party’s supporters have very good reason to feel confused as they struggle to decipher where it stands. Many have become resentful that it has not always fulfilled the expectations regarding Maorification they formed during the 2023 election campaign.
It’s true that the new coalition government quickly overturned Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority as promised, but many voters expected it to carry on with the same enthusiasm with which it had begun its term in office.
It is extremely difficult to understand why National’s strategists don’t appear to grasp how much of its support depends on the party continuing that initial push — and advertising it.
Perhaps this failure stems from the mistake of looking at polls that list the issues voters are most concerned about and assuming that topics such as race relations and Māori issues that don’t fill the top spots aren’t very important.
In fact, voters often care very strongly about issues ranked lower in a list, even if their immediate concerns about the cost of living, inflation, housing and health are rated higher.
Instinctual politicians like Winston Peters understand this. As, of course, does Donald Trump. Voter surveys that included transgender issues would never have told the US President that his campaign should pour tens of millions into an advertisement near election day that said simply: “Kamala Harris is for they/them. Trump is for you.”
It was devastatingly effective, and is widely credited for boosting Trump’s final election tally.
Voters are rarely left in any doubt where Winston Peters and David Seymour stand on the issue of Maorification — whether it is pushing back on te reo in public services and passports or the issue of the foreshore and seabed. And they are quick to claim the credit.
After the referendums on Māori wards were held last month, Seymour pointed out on social media: “[Act] campaigned for and won the right for communities to vote on Māori wards. While it is sad that 17 communities voted to keep race-based seats, 25 communities voted to remove them. That’s 25 communities where the council tried to divide the electorate by race, and the people rejected it.”
Luxon has recently taken to social media to remind the public that National has pushed back hard against gangs and has significantly reduced the number of ram raids and victims of violent crime, and to trumpet trade deals. But he has done nothing similar to advertise the steps National has taken against Maorification.
An obvious example is the lack of fanfare after the MACA amendment bill passed its third reading last month. National didn’t even put out a press release boasting about its role in protecting the rights of all New Zealanders to the coastline.
Unfortunately, Luxon has squandered any credibility he might have had on these issues. When he was asked by The Platform’s Sean Plunket at a post-Cabinet press conference last November what he liked or disliked about David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, he replied: “There isn’t anything I like.”
It was an extraordinarily dismissive response given that one of the bill’s aims was to establish equal rights before the law for all New Zealanders irrespective of race. With his abrupt dismissal, Luxon effectively sided with the Toitū te Tiriti protesters who had marched on Parliament.
As a result of National’s disconnected and contradictory approach to Maorification, few — rightly or wrongly — expect much of substance to be achieved by Goldsmith’s promised review of Treaty clauses in legislation.
In fact, it is probably far too late for Luxon and National to take a credible and unequivocal stand opposing co-governance and Maorification in the run-up to next year’s election.
The party will just have to stand by and watch votes bleed to David Seymour and Winston Peters as they make such opposition a key and credible part of their pitch to voters.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was sourced HERE
27 comments:
National and PM Luxon will have to categorically dismiss any suggestion that National will form a Coalition Government with Labour as NZ approaches the 2026 election.
Otherwise the banners will read "National is for Iwi /Hapu , ACT and NZFirst is for all New Zealanders Party Vote ".
VOTE ACT!
Maorification is quickly moving centre stage for 2026 - despite being omitted from the " name your priority issues" list to ascertain voters' main concerns.
NZers must remember that citizens have never been asked to express their views on this issue - notably their support for citizen equality and democracy. National - under Luxon - will never offer them that opportunity. So votes in 2026 must go to ACT and NZF.
The PM has cooked National's goose.
New Zealand had never in its history been as Maorified as right now in 2025. Not even 3 or 4 hundred years ago was there so much Maori.
ACT is definitely the panacea Kiwi battlers are seeking.
Hang on.....,
Isn't Seymour the deputy education minister who oversaw the inclusion of Maori mumbo jumbo in school board responsibilities?
and wasn't Brooke Van Velden the ACT minister incorporating Maori mumbo jumbo in fire and emergency?
Kiwi battlers must Stop allowing charlatans like David Farrar distract you with their constant stream of exaggerated racist Maori articles.
The government committed $500m to helping alleviate Maoris disastrously bad social statistics this year.
Meanwhile illegal price fixing / goiging electricity generators are charging kiwi battlers $10b this year. NZ Generators profit margins are double international norms so generators are stealing $5000 MILLION dollars off Kiwi battlers this year.
So Mr Adam's and Mr Farrar. Stop distracting Kiwi Battlers with your racist Maori bs and start reporting the real thieves.
How can we un-maorify New Zealand? Is it like what the did with unleaded petrol, or is there some other process
Like you Graham I believe that it is too late for National to try and change things and that they are heading for the same sort of electoral hiding that the Liberals got in Australia.
But without these imaginary culture wars, who else could we blame for our circumstances? The rich, the powerful, the dog-whistling? Never!
Certainly will!
You do realize Ken that if you perpetuate the populace distracting racist Maori myths, not only will you go on paying $10000 more per year than an Australia family for groceries, you'll also have Hipkins in charge of the country's finances.
Doesn't appear overly clever. Unless you own a supermarket. Do you own a supermarket Ken?
There is no question of denying Maori their proper place in this land, first comers, distinct culture, authentic (more or less) treaty. It is the ersatz, half-baked, patronising WOKE that demeans us all!
This week I sent an email to my local National MP, who is also a Cabinet Minister, re the racial division that National is refusing to address.
After a bit of a patsy answer, this was in the concluding paragraph :
"We understand where these concerns come from, as previous governments have at times been guided by co-governance principles. We will not make that mistake. We will ensure all our practices are guided by common sense and fairness – partnership, not privilege."
Partnership ? Is that now official National policy.
Please repudiate if that is not correct.
What is that telling us about National attitude and intentions ?
They have lost all trust that so many have had in National, and I will never support them again.
MfK
If it were not for lingering doubts about his and Jone's maori attachment, Winston would likely be on course for next PM. Followed by Seymour, assuming he can avoid deranged savages from the stone age.
Surely the question has to be: "Why would any voter vote for any party that doesn't see us as all equal New Zealanders?" I agree with anonymous at 11.36. Maori saturation.
We have been hijacked by the woke. Many people speaking up against Maorification are actually pro-democracy exponents not racists. I don't believe many people can grasp the enormity of the situation. It has been an insidious creep into a very egalitarian society. As for a Universal Basic Wage...how daft is that? A much better plan is to transform our society so that small businesses and workers thrive. We cannot achieve equity, it is a pipe dream. Large businesses should contribute to our welfare as well. Do people not believe the next phase is a land grab? Watch this space.
First comers?
Trump would have tidied this mess up within the first month of taking office.
In a well run democracy, as Don Brash replied many years ago, when asked the question. Are Maori special? No, he replied. Simple really.
I’m scared of Maoris to and can I just say thank you for creating this safe space for us
Has Mexico learned from Maori to make Europeans grovel, as they are demanding and getting apologies from Spain for the actions of Conquistadors from 500 years ago ?
Special privileges for Mexicans with a proven ancestry ?
For all practical purposes, yes. But if we're going to get picky, is there a 'real' Maori among us? So interbred(like most human beings since we came down from the trees), seems like a bunch of disgruntled people struggling to stroke their own egos. REAL PROBLEM - the rest of us falling over backwards to help them!
Define"proper place". Equality of citizenship is the deal Maori signed up for. Maori culture is neolithic. There is no mystery no knowledge that isn't available in the other racial groups in NZ. Maori would not have survived without colonial foods and technology. Had a gutsful of Maori BS?? Join the club.
Thank you for sharing that. Perhaps we need to all write to our local MPs to say “Neither Partnership Nor Privilege. But Equality”
I don't know why you are scared; the stone age was 10000 years ago, it can't hurt you. Anyway, if you want something to be scared of think about Labour winning the next election, or even National for that matter. You could of course be just trying to be sarcastic in a misspelled sort of way.
The upcoming revision of treaty clauses in legislation is a big test for National. If they don't go far enough, many voters will switch to ACT, NZ First. They have badly misjudged the depth of feeling on Maorification.
Surely you must mean those iwi who charge the power generators rent? ... and lots of it! They are the real gougers. Maorification is akin to a cancer, the worst kind.
and dare we say it is well deserved too!???
Luxon thanked the iwi for educating him - that edukayshun was the usual BS of partnership and everything that is gleaned from 'looking beyond the words of the Treaty'. Trust is earned and so easy to lose! Luxon has lost it. Yes there is danger in sticking it to National but a) it is deserved and b) the alternatives to the right of centre are the only viable ones to consider.
Post a Comment