What Waatea News is producing here is not analysis of 2025. It is a maintenance narrative — a story designed to protect institutional arrangements at the point they are being democratically wound back.
The structure is familiar and closely follows the He Puapua road map, as articulated by Claire Charters and advanced in practice by Lady Tureiti Moxon.
First comes the assertion of existential threat. Ordinary policy changes — funding reprioritisation, institutional reform, legislative review — are framed as “betrayal”, “erasure”, or an unprecedented attack on Māori rights. Evidence is secondary. Once reform is cast as a rights violation, disagreement itself becomes illegitimate.
Second, democracy is reframed as conditional. Electoral mandate and universal provision are treated as inferior to Treaty “partnership”. Authority is no longer derived from votes or outcomes, but from identity. This is not participation; it is a claim to ongoing co-governance, regardless of public consent.
Third, policy preferences are inflated into rights. Māori-specific institutions, funding streams and media protections are described not as political choices but as safeguards of identity. To question them is to cause cultural harm. This is precisely the juridical logic Lady Moxon has promoted: once identity is framed as vulnerable, courts and international bodies are invited to arbitrate domestic policy.
Fourth, the remedy is always entrenchment. The answer is never temporary support, review, or improved performance, but permanent embedding — treaty-based governance, protected funding, mandated consultation, and insulation from future democratic change. This is He Puapua in motion.
Waatea’s role in this ecosystem is not incidental. It is closely aligned with Willie Jackson and John Tamihere through Māori-first political and social organisations such as MUMA and the Waipareira Trust. Its function is not to interrogate this ideology, but to normalise and defend it — especially when political momentum turns against it.
Most revealing is what goes unquestioned. Taxpayer support is treated as a given right, not a contested public choice. There is almost no discussion of standing on one’s own feet, of audience demand, of performance, or of whether publicly funded Māori media should be expected to adapt and compete like everyone else. Funding is assumed; scrutiny is framed as hostility.
That is why the narrative of perpetual betrayal persists. What is being lost is not rights, services, or citizenship. It is institutional influence and insulation from review.
The story must therefore continue, because its purpose is not to describe reality, but to preserve authority.
Source: https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/12/geoff-parker-narrative-of-perpetual.html?showComment=1766782578253#c8351724793322408664
***************
The drive for ethno-superiority doesn’t happen in a vacuum. There is a template, and it’s been in plain sight for years.
He Puapua set out a strategy not of persuasion, but of institutional embedding — advancing a contested constitutional vision by lodging it inside media narratives, academic orthodoxy, bureaucratic practice, and, increasingly, judicial interpretation. The point was never to win a public argument. It was to make the argument unnecessary.
That’s why taxpayer funding is spoken of as a right rather than a choice; why scrutiny is reframed as hostility or racism; why disagreement is treated as bad faith; and why democratic review is cast as betrayal. These are not random complaints. They are pressure points.
Second, democracy is reframed as conditional. Electoral mandate and universal provision are treated as inferior to Treaty “partnership”. Authority is no longer derived from votes or outcomes, but from identity. This is not participation; it is a claim to ongoing co-governance, regardless of public consent.
Third, policy preferences are inflated into rights. Māori-specific institutions, funding streams and media protections are described not as political choices but as safeguards of identity. To question them is to cause cultural harm. This is precisely the juridical logic Lady Moxon has promoted: once identity is framed as vulnerable, courts and international bodies are invited to arbitrate domestic policy.
Fourth, the remedy is always entrenchment. The answer is never temporary support, review, or improved performance, but permanent embedding — treaty-based governance, protected funding, mandated consultation, and insulation from future democratic change. This is He Puapua in motion.
Waatea’s role in this ecosystem is not incidental. It is closely aligned with Willie Jackson and John Tamihere through Māori-first political and social organisations such as MUMA and the Waipareira Trust. Its function is not to interrogate this ideology, but to normalise and defend it — especially when political momentum turns against it.
Most revealing is what goes unquestioned. Taxpayer support is treated as a given right, not a contested public choice. There is almost no discussion of standing on one’s own feet, of audience demand, of performance, or of whether publicly funded Māori media should be expected to adapt and compete like everyone else. Funding is assumed; scrutiny is framed as hostility.
That is why the narrative of perpetual betrayal persists. What is being lost is not rights, services, or citizenship. It is institutional influence and insulation from review.
The story must therefore continue, because its purpose is not to describe reality, but to preserve authority.
Source: https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/12/geoff-parker-narrative-of-perpetual.html?showComment=1766782578253#c8351724793322408664
***************
The drive for ethno-superiority doesn’t happen in a vacuum. There is a template, and it’s been in plain sight for years.
He Puapua set out a strategy not of persuasion, but of institutional embedding — advancing a contested constitutional vision by lodging it inside media narratives, academic orthodoxy, bureaucratic practice, and, increasingly, judicial interpretation. The point was never to win a public argument. It was to make the argument unnecessary.
That’s why taxpayer funding is spoken of as a right rather than a choice; why scrutiny is reframed as hostility or racism; why disagreement is treated as bad faith; and why democratic review is cast as betrayal. These are not random complaints. They are pressure points.
- The role of sympathetic media is to normalise the claims.
- Academics supply the moral language.
- Bureaucrats implement by guidance rather than statute.
- Courts are then asked to recognise these arrangements as settled principles.
- By the time voters are consulted — if they ever are — the ground has already shifted.
Calling this out is not inflammatory. It is civic hygiene. He Puapua did not require universal consent; it required quiet uptake.
The proper response is not silence or deference, but exposure: insistence on process, evidence, accountability, and democratic authority.
Disagreement is not oppression. Scrutiny is not racism. And constitutional change should not be smuggled in under the cover of grievance.
And let’s push the government MPs over and over until Luxon listens, or we move to use our votes tactically.
Source: https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/12/geoff-parker-narrative-of-perpetual.html?showComment=1766806653907#c5672622180437663858
The proper response is not silence or deference, but exposure: insistence on process, evidence, accountability, and democratic authority.
Disagreement is not oppression. Scrutiny is not racism. And constitutional change should not be smuggled in under the cover of grievance.
And let’s push the government MPs over and over until Luxon listens, or we move to use our votes tactically.
Source: https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/12/geoff-parker-narrative-of-perpetual.html?showComment=1766806653907#c5672622180437663858
1 comment:
Key and Ardern hatched this diabolical plan to divide our nation. The damage is deeply embedded and difficult to repair as outlined by the author.
If we want to return to what we once cherished then we need someone with the courage to lead it. Luxon has clearly demonstrated he lacks the will or the courage to discuss the issue through David Seymours Treaty Principle Bill and therefore, should be relieved from any further leadership duties. .
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.