THERE’S FROTH, AND THERE’S BEER. What we see happening on the Waitangi Treaty Grounds every 6 February, not to mention the political performance-art on the lower marae, is froth. The beer of Māori-Pakeha relations is to be found in the private meeting rooms of Waitangi’s Copthorne Hotel & Resort, where the National Iwi Chairs Forum (NICF) deliberates in secret upon Maoridom’s next moves. It is there, in the days leading up to Waitangi Day, that New Zealand’s new Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, will either face down the men and women driving the stake of co-governance into the heart of the Settler State – or see Labour spiral slowly to defeat.
The designation “Iwi Chairs” seems so innocuous. It conjures up the image of a roomful of corporate bureaucrats working their way through a very boring agenda, and breaking-off every now and then to listen to equally boring presentations from bankers, accountants and the occasional politician. In reality, the NCIF represents the High Command of Maoridom: the strategic hub of the campaign to take back control of Aotearoa from its Pakeha conquerors. Those gathering at the Copthorne are not a bit like the rag-tag groups of Māori nationalist activists that came together in the 1970s and 80s. If tino rangatiratangameans “the power of the chiefs”, then these are the chiefs that wield it.
Thanks to thirty years of Treaty Settlements, the NICF is both well-positioned and well-resourced to flex its muscles. Between them, the Iwi represented at the Forum command assets valued in the billions. That buys them all the big law firms and all the big lawyers they need. It buys them top-of-the-line lobbyists and public relations experts. It buys them influence in the news media and the universities. It means that, when the NICF whistles, serious politicians from all the major parties tend to come running – up to and including prime ministers.
In short, the NICF is what you get when you don’t want hundreds-of-thousands of working-class Māori demanding their fair share of the national cake. An uprising of marginalised urban Māori (the primary focus of Māori political agitation in the 1980s) could hardly avoid inspiring an even larger number of marginalised Pakeha. Such a potent socio-economic alliance would be extremely harmful to capitalism and other exploitative creatures. Hence the Crown’s inspired prophylactic against the further radicalisation of the Māori working-class – the Treaty Settlement Process. Make a handful of Māori aristocrats and other assorted high-flyers rich and powerful, and not only can they then be relied upon to keep the urban Māori poor quiet, but also to co-opt anyone of a mind to stir them up.
For a while.
The great risk of re-establishing a well-resourced and powerful indigenous elite is that, a generation or two later, those responsible will be faced with confident, highly educated young Māori who can think of no good reason why they – the privileged beneficiaries of the Treaty Settlement Process – should continue to provide a buffer between the heirs of their colonial conquerors and the tens-of-thousands of Māori families made poor, and kept poor, by colonisation.
What’s more, this generation will evince no interest in constructing a Māori-Pakeha working-class alliance against either Pakeha Capitalism or the Neo-Tribal Capitalist sub-system brought into being by the Treaty Settlement Process. The generation raised under this ethnically-charged neoliberal regime will not be socialists, they will be ethno-nationalists. If wealth is to be redistributed, it will not be from the rich to the poor, but from the descendants of the Pakeha colonisers to the descendants of the colonised Māori. It will be a revolution driven not by class, but by race.
There could be no better example of the policies generated by the iwi elites and their political representatives than the project known as Three Waters. Putting Private Members Bills to one side, it is rare to encounter a piece of legislation so closely associated with and shaped by a single member of Cabinet – in this case, the then Local Government Minister, Nanaia Mahuta. Nor is it common to see a legislative project preceded by an advertising campaign subsequently condemned as both misleading and inaccurate. The Labour Government’s decision to reverse its earlier affirmation that local authorities would be free to opt-out of the scheme only compounded the ethical problems besetting Mahuta’s project.
At the forefront of these was the legislation’s commitment to “co-governance”. In the midst of structures specifically designed to protect the relevant “entities” from all forms of democratic accountability, the legislation located a body split 50/50 between members supposedly chosen to represent the interests of local consumers, and those indisputably chosen to represent the interests of local iwi.
NZ First’s Shane Jones’s description of Mahuta’s Three Waters Project was typically robust:
“What was initially an attempt to fix some drinking water has turned into a highly divisive and pulverising social experiment that has got nothing to do with poo pipes and infrastructure. Now it’s got everything to do with whether or not tribes should have a superior right [over water].”
Jones also argued that Jacinda Ardern’s government had “lost control” of Mahuta’s project:
“She was unable to control Nanaia Mahuta, who has proven to be one of New Zealand’s most divisive politicians that God ever put breath into.”
Nowhere was Ardern’s loss of control more evident that in the parliamentary debacle which followed the last-minute, constitutionally-dubious, attempt to entrench “anti-privatisation” clauses in the legislation setting up the Three Waters project, as it neared the end of its passage, under urgency, through the House of Representatives.
If ever a project needed to be abandoned completely, and the rebuilding of New Zealand’s drinking, storm and wastewater infrastructure reconceptualised in ways that keep it both affordable and accountable, then that project is Three Waters.
Not that the Iwi Chairs gathered at the Copthorne Hotel are likely to see it that way. Mahuta’s project had brought them closer to Jones’s “superior right” over water than any of her predecessors. Their message to Chris Hipkins is likely to be a blunt one: repeal Mahuta’s legislation at your peril.
New Zealand’s new Prime Minister knows that the National Iwi Chairs Forum has the means to make life very difficult for his government. Notwithstanding their objections, however, Hipkins direction of travel – already clearly signalled by his very public demotion of Mahuta – must be confirmed by an emphatic and unequivocal pledge to repeal the Three Waters legislation and start again.
If Labour is to secure a third term, then Hipkins must make it clear to all New Zealanders – Māori and Pakeha – that his government is not about fulfilling the agendas of corporate/tribal elites. It is about making sure that every New Zealander in need of a job, a living wage, and a warm, dry house, gets one. That their family’s right to publicly-provided, quality health care and education is not denied. And that the promise of equality, enshrined in Article Three of the Treaty of Waitangi, is kept. Because that’s the only beer that’s electorally fit for Labour to drink: the beer of class – not race.
Everything else is froth.
I’ll drink to that, Chris.
So will I after we’ve blown off the froth.
I’ve heard that about you Dulwich graduate types Bob.
“If wealth is to be redistributed, it will not be from the rich to the poor, but from the descendants of the Pakeha colonisers to the descendants of the colonised Māori”
And this gets to the lunacy underlying the entire Treaty/colonisation grievance industry. What are painted as being separate categories of people are, in fact, exactly the same people – the “descendants of colonised Maori” are ALSO “the descendants of the European colonisers. Because they have blood from both sources, the only thing that makes them “Maori” as opposed to “colonial” is their personal decision and their personal interests. It is not at all trivial to point out that all Maori today also have genealogical connections to European colonisers. When the parties to a grievance cannot be meaningfully distinguished, then where exactly is the grievance.
Oh boy you can’t teach dumb to some pakeha in our beautiful country. I thought that the ‘Eugenics’ issue in NZ had been debunked and got rid of??
“Eugenics” is a good strawman, but irrelevant. This is essentially a race issue, and membership of a particular race is an objective fact, therefore categorising and distinguishing the parties according to their DNA is paramount. What IS a “Maori”? The concept is a biological category, not whether or not someone “identifies” as a Maori. If anyone can identify as Maori with no further justification, then nobody is Maori. I’m White, but I can simply identify as Maori if it suits me? That seems arbitrary.
When the question is one of “race X behaved in a certain way towards race Y” then there needs to be some biological basis for distinguishing the parties. When every Maori also has Pakeha blood, then their conflict is essentially with themselves. Their relatives are both the “victim” and the “perpetrator” so the one logically cancels out the other.
Utter rubbish and that fascist thinking is what been wrong in this country race relations since colonization.
This is a fallacy. 15 years ago I worked for Passports. This was back when people would send in original copies of birth certificates with their applications. During that time I regularly saw birth certificates (of middle aged Maori) that stated the holder was “Full blooded Maori”.
These birth certificates hark back to the days when the concept of blood purity was still a thing and a register was held with such information. So there are still “pure” Maori out there. Whether they married other “pure” Maori and reproduced I don’t remember, and that register is long gone so there is no record. But i for one Ann convinced by my own experience that there are plenty of full blooded Maori still out there.
So, that someone states, on a piece of paper, that they are “full blooded this” or “full blooded that” is an undoubted proof of the truth of the assertion? I appreciate that civil servants need to be, in the function of their bureaucratic duties, immune to imagination and story-telling, but to take your experience at the DIA as incontrovertible is, properly, risible.
Exactly!
There is evidence available to show our descent from Noah or Adam so you could claim that (even though many would not accept that idea) but I personally know Maori who don’t have any European (or any other race) in their bloodline since they were colonised so you are just making things up to suit your warped ideas.
They will stick to the forth, poor the liquid on the floor and call it deconstructed beer and charge 100 per glass. 98 is for the water and 2 for the froth.
At least that would trickle down.
Excellent analysis. We must continue to expose the divisive racialism of these nationalists.
The labour movement must not fall for it, as there is nothing “progressive” about it at all. It will only destroy race relations, divide the workers, and make real labour organising even more difficult.
Name me one Maori Nationalist group?
Iwi are by definition nationalist groups.
Mark Heatherbell
nationalist
/ˈnaʃənəlɪst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
I believe you need to rethink your troupe lol
Why not name one Pakeha nationalist group instead of making false claims of Iwi being a nationalist group?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Front
Name me one Pakeha nationalist group even though that doesn’t make sense as their ancestors don’t indigenate from Aotearoa NZ.
We are all immigrants Stephen – just some arrived before others. There should be equal rights for all.
Oh boy another dozzy! One of the reasons EX PM Jacinda Ardern was vilified by pakeha is that she dared called Maori the Indigenous people of our beautiful country Aotearoa NZ.
This is one tiny bit of anti-Maori Sentiment that we constantly endure in our homeland. This insistence that we are all immigrants is an attempt by pakeha bigots to minimize its role it played in dispossessing maori.
immigrant
/ˈɪmɪɡr(ə)nt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
“he’s a recent immigrant to the US from Germany”
Similar:
newcomer
settler
incomer
new arrival
migrant
emigrant
indigenous
/ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
“coriander is indigenous to southern Europe”
Similar:
native
endemic
local
domestic
Opposite:
non-native
introduced
imported
2.
(of people) inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists.
What about if someone arrived at your house & claimed equal rights, put a fence down the middle & started living in half of it? As a 5th generation New Zealander I have no other nation to cling to but I can also recognise the unfair treatment that Maori suffered & have no objection to sensible ways to correct that injustice.
Ok Chris what do you suggest, we have just seen Auckland fail in a big way. Auckland has the multi million dollar Watercare paying big salaries, Auckland not only has floods it has dirty beaches. Wellington drains fail and sewage seeps into the streets. The common complaints are blocked drains and frequent calls in many smaller communities after heavy rain to boil their drinking water. Unfortunately the race card is always pulled out when it comes to water. We all remember the devastation of Havelock North with their contaminated water. All these issue are with the complaining local councils. If these councils are so efficient why are we still having these water and sewage problems. What have rate payers been paying for over the many years of failures. Labour may not have sold it very well however the opposition has no answers other than to give the money to the local councils and we all know where that will end up, certainly not spent on water infrastructure. People like Chris trotter need to stop preaching about racism and his comments about peoples needs should include clean drinking water, working drainage, and clean beaches and rivers that are always safe to swim in.
For goodness sake.
Chris is simply pointing out the inherent racism that Labour have been promoting.
co governance WILL NOT solve ANY of those problems either. It will cost Rate payers a lot more though for nothing but an ineffective inflated bureaucracy .
The recent Auckland flooding has nothing to do with Watercare and everything to do with the highest January rainfall ever recorded and infill housing by greedy developers. Such housing would not have happened if the Regional Council has not been disbanded for the creation of the Super shitty.
Shona the pensioner, keep up as you’re way behind the ball on co-governance. Why do pakeha like yourself keep referring co-governance as a race baiting issue?
How do you know Shona is Pakeha unless she has identified herself as such before. Do you want to identify yourself Stephen – never know, you may be Tipene, but decided to become Stephen – instead of the other way around….
Thomas, because she’s admitted her ethnicity in her glee of belonging to a superior race vehemently pointing out that her ancestors came to our shores 10 years before the signing of the TOW. True story bro
but she hasn’t mentioned race in her post, just pointed out its more pointless bureaucracy. It will be the water version of the new Polytech entity – more professional managerial class bullshit job creation without doing anything real, and hiding behind virtue signalling woke crap.
She doesn’t need to because most of her comments have anti-Maori sentiments and some just down right racist which is ashame because it’s tainted her narrative when speaking on political issues that involve Maori. True story bro
where did i say that????Only racists like you Stephen fresh from polishing the array of chips on their shoulders spout worn out tropes and cliches like that!
Airing your idiot ageism again I see.
Well said.
Because they don’t know what co governance is, so the easiest explanation is one of racism, it’s lazy but easiest for the right.
Ok smart arse. What exactly is co governance? Enlighten us oh wise one.
He doesn’t know TKW.
Stupid comment.
Exactly the same as when used under a National/Act/Maori and United Future coalition. The only difference is the opposition didn’t create a racial term to divide the country. Bob and Kraut team tagging.
We are waiting for your explanation?
Have you not been arrested for your paedo offences yet Blobby.
The evidence is there in front of you.
So calling someone a “pensioner” is your idea of an argument, Stephen?
Pope Punctilious 11. He’s being a wee bit ageist- “ ists” are the only way numskulls function and he may even think he’s frightfully clever working out that the lady has had a well-lived life with an impressive plethora of acquired skills and know-how.
Shona there have been months of warnings in Auckland about dirty beaches these past summer months. Auckland has had its wettest January on record this is going to get worse not better. Whether you like it or not Maori are New Zealand’s indigenous people, they like us deserve clean drinking water, efficient infrastructure for water cleanliness, delivery and an efficient sewage system that is effective and all sewage is disposed of in a manner that does not impact health or welfare of any person in New Zealand.
I think Chris’s point Queeny is that the issue of water infrastructure has been used to advance a different agenda. I know many people opposed to 3 Waters who are pro the Treaty. The government has conflated 2 separate issues and that has caused the problem. They also put out a very childish TV campaign and have been less than transparent with the detail. Many would contend that the Scottish model doesn’t work so well in NZ for a variety of reasons so you are not comparing apples with apples. There has also been precious little detail about cost and whether people will end up paying more – which will hurt low income people, Maori, Pakeha and other, the most.
Most I know opposed to 3 Waters want good drinking water so are not opposed to that. The question is how? The water has been muddied by all the other agendas. The other question is whether adding a centralised process and more layers of bureaucracy and process will achieve these aims and in a cost effective manner?
So what’s the answer? My suggestion is that the starting point should be every other agenda is taken off the table and the only questions are ones such as: how do we provide safe drinking water for all New Zealanders? how do we install and maintain efficient infrastructure that is fit for purpose? how do we reduce the risk of flooding? how do we ensure good treatment of sewage? and how do we do this cost effectively?
I’d suggest some of the following:
– retain ownership at Council level as there is also an interconnection with building standards, planning and consenting
-Use the government’s considerable buying power to negotiate discounts with firms for water infrastructure materials
-require all municipal waste treatment plants and water treatment plants to meet standards for treatment of water and discharges. There are new technologies that can treat to a very high standard
-require all Councils to meet these standards within a certain timeframe and provide annual reporting on this as well as maintenance and ongoing upgrades
-Require them to identify all infrastructure and replace all pipework that has a leakage rate about a certain level (all pipework has a degree of leakage but some networks are unacceptably high)
-Stop issuing building consents in flood zones
-Require stormwater to be treated to a minimum level (most plans have a lot of permitted activity status for stormwater discharge)
-Encourage and incentivise water re-use
-require all stormwater systems to have treatment trains that include flow attenuation and infiltration devices
-Revise the annual exceedance probability requirements (e.g. 1 in 100 year floods) to something more realistic with what we are getting now.
There’s more I could add but hopefully you get the picture. All those suggestions relate solely to the central issue – provision of safe drinking water, efficient infrastructure, good and programmed maintenance and good treatment of discharges. Those and only those (or similar matters) should be on the table for 3 waters. Get those right and a lot of the other stuff will take care of itself.
Oh – and one other thing: we should dial back our predilection for large houses that we don’t need with huge roof areas and lots of paved/concreted areas that increase stormwater run-off and reduce infiltration areas. There should be penalties for houses over a certain size and a requirement for on-site stormwater treatment and attenuation for them.
Good ideas.
Chris R the reason we are having this conversation is because of the woeful neglect of water infrastructure in New Zealand. You make many valid points, however why would the government issue more money to the city councils for water infrastructure when they haven’t bothered to put ratepayers money ( that they pay in rates in good faith ) into keeping the water infrastructure sound. From what i see of the “agenda “ only a certain group of people are pushing the racist agenda that really has got absolutely nothing to do with water . Their racist agenda is based on hate and their racist concerns are based on the fact that they are afraid that other people will get more than them.
Just a point Queeny Havelock North has completely repaired and improved their water system without any help from Wellington. Just a case of councils making better decisions about their water in the first place instead of building monuments to themselves.
And Havelock North wasn’t so much a Council failure although the inquiry found that failings by Councils, while not directly causing the outcome, MAY have resulted in a different outcome if they were not there. The inquiry found the likely cause was heavy rainfall inundating paddocks next to the Council water bores “causing contaminated water to flow into a pond about 90 metres from Brookvale Road bore 1. On 5 and 6 August 2016, water in the pond entered the aquifer and flowed across to Brookvale Road bore 1 where the bore pump drew contaminated water through the bore and into the reticulation system”. The new Water Services Bill requires Councils to have greater protection of source water. The reality though is there are a lot of old bores around the countryside that Councils have no records of as they preceded consenting requirements, and individual landowners also have a responsibility to ensure their bores are properly secured.
You better check your sources before commenting?
Stephen, who are you referring to re sources? If mine, I work in an aligned industry and was quoting in part from the official inquiry report. All I see in your comments is name calling and no reasoned comment or sources.
ChrisR , buhahahaha and you expect me to believe you? And we can’t let pakeha’s have all the say now can we?
Stephen you need to get over your obsession with race. You’re a human being, not better, not worse just equal.
Actually New View don’t you think they actually Had to fix their water supply ?? after what happened. Don’t you think they were duty bound to fix their water supply immediately after what happened. Rate payers pay rates for clean water so i am not sure why Wellington should have had to fix up this council’s woeful neglect. This is nothing to shout about this is what should happen all over New Zealand
Queenly Trotter is expounding facts, nothing more, nothing less. If he uses words which you find unpalatable, then perhaps ponder why,
Hey Hollyhock we all have opinions right or is it the case of its only free speech when it suits others agendas. Maybe take your own advice and ponder that.
“ Maybe take your own advice and ponder that.” I do. Always have.
Nah Auckland water is fine.
Plenty of drinking water coming out of the tap,
And lots in storage now.
Queen I don’t think you got what CT is saying. He’s saying exactly what you think he should be saying. Read his article again…maybe times. Hopefully you’ll get it.
…maybe times
Come back when you get a grasp on English, you retard.
Excellent analysis, Chris.
Spot on.
More froth from the Treaty hater Trotter spewing up his ‘Maori elite’ jargon as if that the real issue. You do know that the ‘Treaty of Waitangi’ has more than an english version and more than 1 article? Seems you fit right in with NZPRC an organization frequented by like minded creatures such as Elizabeth Rata, Muriel Newman, Ross Baker, Don Brash, Ross Merrant…etc
…and me, and anyone with sense.
So you’re just another ‘Maori-basher’ like-minded person disguise as an intellectual using coded narrative because the alternative discourse is now taboo.
Sensible people are open to discussion, you just tried to shut it all down. Not too Sensible.
Hello part Ngati Mutunga here.
Our current water infrastructure governance structure is inadequate, unaccountable and needs to change but three waters is even more unaccountable
Different regions have different needs hell, suburbs in the same towns and cities have different needs to other suburbs and I do not believe a centralized one size fits all approach with an 0800 number to call Wellington if you have an issue will work.
Proponents have lost the argument. It is so unpopular it will sink the government and will elect an economically hard right govt that will immediately overturn it but make life impossibly hard for poor Maori and poor pakeha.
Three waters needs to go back to the drawing board. We need reform in the water sector.
As for your comments about pakeha and Maori, the beautiful part about this country is we are all immigrants, even my Maori ancestors who sailed the Pacific from Asia to easter island.
At some point or another every culture that has come to this beautiful land has come here to make a better more prosperous life.
With so much poverty shared between poor Maori , pakeha asian and everyone else in NZ why oh why do you reject the idea that poor people should unite together over class?
Poor Maori and poor pakeha have more in common than rich Maori and poor maori and it won’t be poor Maori or poor pakeha on these unelected boards, if it were damn right I’d support this…
We need a plan to bring everyone together to unite against the powerful, who’d prefer we sat back and argued with each over race , sexuality, gender etc than uniting to fight the powerful.
Well said Corey Humm.
Corey Humm Maori aren’t immigrants in the context that you’ve wrongly depicted they’re the Indigenous people of NZ. The immigrant troupe is what bigots use to demean Maori indigeneity.
Words of wisdom, Corey Humm, thank you.
Bollocks comment. Try playing the ball rather than the man.
Too right Chris, otherwise New Zealand will get too Right next election.
As a keen farm forester, I have a selection of stakes available for the PM .
They comes in a range of both exotic and indigenous varieties.
Akeake is comparable to Hickory and Eucalyptus Piluaris is particularly well coloured and very strong and straight.
Available after proof of a decent donation to KidsCan.
It’s a no brainer.
They’ll/we’ll just to have to come up with something similar.
Climate change has arrived. It, thus, is, by definition, too late to fight it, but now there is agreement. I’d like to see the fight.
Well said Chris – will be very interesting watching this develop.
Labour will do anything to attract votes hence they’re already winding back 3 Waters.
If it was so good yesterday why is it no good today?
OK Bob the last
Thanks for your support Stephen.
Stupid comment.
Why would you ditch the whole thing? Even those useless self interested councillors admit the current model is not working.
Remove the co governance piece then but if you haven’t noticed how utterly f’ing hopeless the councils have been by and large you clearly live overseas.
And since when is Shane Jones anything more than a dodgy individual?
Whangarei Council has not been hopeless in providing water to it’s rate payers and it has no debt.
am i connected
Chris is absolutely right
Three waters is a Treaty Settlement, mainly benefitting Tainui designed and driven by a Tainui princess and paid for by ratepayers.
Even Stephen admits it is mainly to do with perceived maori water rights
If the Crown wish to do a Treaty settlement they should declare it as such, pay for it and bear the political consequences
This government is setting up serious civil disorder
If the water supply cannot be protected from privitization, no changes should occur. At all.
To be a winner,flouds and other floods,inclement.to when,our wai,not allowed farmer brown rivers have their river squals,as their wai of farm pollution pollutes our Wai Tai.
I would have thought if there was a problem with water safety then the papers would be exposing it. But mostly they are very quiet. Also, 3 waters, if it goes ahead, would be useless on the delivery front: too big, too unweildy, too impotent. And anyway, why would the aristocrats worry about water for the plebs.
Glenn
An excellent piece by Chris Trotter.
Oh Bob the last, chiming in with mob again!! Seems to be your only contribution to these discussion.
Thanks for your advice Stephen but I contend I’m rarely part of the mob,in fact the contrary.
Blobby is a lazy contributor Stephen. Critical thinking, he does not.
I was amused by the concern over entrenching anti privatisation provisions in the legislation as being anti democratic. Pretty much all privatised government assets have been de-facto anti-nationalised by virtue of their increase in value after privatisation. This make it effectively impossible to take back into public ownership due to the cost of compensation. Considering in most cases there was no discussion or election manifesto stating the intention to privatise or in some cases no to privatisation votes in referendums I really dont see trying to protect public ownership as being any less democratic. Hysteria whipped up by right wing MSM once again.
Great post Chris, all apart from the slur on Capitalism. Do you have a better alternative?
Comments are closed.