KIERAN MCANULTY has changed the game in a way only open to authentic political leaders. Instead of shying away from the challenges of co-governance, he has leaned into them. Instead of hiding behind the obfuscating language of official communications, he has demonstrated the extraordinary power of a simple “Yes” or “No”. What’s more, he has done all this in the accents of an ordinary Kiwi bloke. Kieran McAnulty is the person Chris Hipkins is trying to be.
Sticking up for the Treaty of Waitangi was always the winning response for the Sixth Labour Government. Most New Zealanders are justifiably proud of their country’s efforts to offer the indigenous Māori a measure of redress for the injustices heaped upon them during the creation of the settler-state of New Zealand. It is, of course, true that not all New Zealanders feel this way, but those who reject the promises of the Treaty grow fewer in number with every passing year. Young New Zealand, the demographic fast embracing “Aotearoa” as their nation, believe in the Treaty – and will fight for it.
McAnulty gets this because, at just 38 years-of-age, he’s a member of that younger demographic. The Baby Boom generation came of political age under the shadow of a racist majority. The majority Rob Muldoon knew he could count on in 1975 and 1981. The reactionary social formation that was still there in great numbers back in 2004 when Don Brash delivered his in/famous Orewa Speech. The motivational force behind Helen Clark’s ruthless response to the Court of Appeal’s decision on the foreshore and seabed. But McAnulty, alongside many others in Labour’s caucus, is two generations away from the politicians who were young in the 1960s and 70s. That world has gone – just as gaslight and gaiters had gone from the world of the post-war generation.
So why didn’t Gen-Xers like Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins lean-in to the co-governance debate like McAnulty? One possible explanation is that they were never able to shake-off their fear that the big racist monster was still out there, still capable of upending progressive governments. They had, after all, seen at close hand Clark’s reaction to the post-Orewa polls. They had been witnesses, not only to the Labour leader’s fear of a Pakeha racist backlash, but also to her antipathy towards the “haters and wreckers” of Māori nationalism. Those sort of experiences leave a deep impression.
For McAnulty, however, those are yesterday’s political calculations. Either through careful sociological study, or by pure intuition, he has grasped what so many of his colleagues have not. That a substantial number – maybe even a majority – of the Baby Boomers can be won away from their fear of the big racist monster. That the people who marched against the Vietnam War, protested the Springbok Tour, and organised for a nuclear-free New Zealand no longer have to worry about what the older generation will say or do – because most of the RSA Generation are dead and buried. Its their kids and their grandkids that they should be thinking of now.
McAnulty’s other key insight is that when younger New Zealanders hear the word “democracy” their reaction is often quite different from that of their parents and grandparents. Democracy was what the Baby Boomers parents had fought for during the Second World War. It was the precious heirloom of the “Free World” through all the years of the Cold War. For the young New Zealanders who grew up in the shadow of Roger Douglas and Ruth Ricardson, however, democracy has been subjected to an altogether more robust interrogation.
It was under democracy that the New Zealand trade union movement was gutted, and never allowed to recover. It was under democracy that the welfare state became as cold as charity. It was democracy that looked at global warming – and did nothing. Democracy that denied an entire generation their own affordable home. Democracy that allowed big corporations to wreck the New Zealand environment, and send their profits offshore. Sure, you could vote, once every three years, but nothing ever seemed to change. Democracy might have done plenty for their grandparents’ and parents’ generations, but it has done bugger-all for theirs.
When older New Zealanders look at co-governance they are prone to see the demise of one-person, one-vote. But young New Zealanders look at the mess local government has made of their cities and towns, rivers and forests; they think about the way farming and business interests always seem to get what they want – often at the expense of everybody and everything else; and they ask themselves: Could the Māori make a worse job of looking after Aotearoa than Pakeha democracy? Could co-governance with mana whenua be any worse than co-governance with capitalists?
McAnulty has, quite rightly, pointed out that New Zealand has developed its own version of democracy. That it is steadily moving towards a way of governing that sees achieving consensus as preferable to, and certainly more sensible than, a 50 percent+1 tyranny of the majority. Both Māori and Pakeha are talking about a constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi, rather than the Westminster system. A way forward that follows the paths already laid down in numerous Treaty settlements. A system of governance based on the peoples we are becoming, rather than the far-from-democratic institutions which the British colonisers brought with them.
If McAnulty’s colleagues have the courage to follow his lead, then the looming election may yet become an historical turning point. With National and Act offering nothing more than more of the same, Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori have been given the chance to join the most progressive elements of the older generations with the hopes and aspirations of younger New Zealanders, thereby forging an electoral alliance equal to the challenges of an uncertain and demanding future.
More than quarter-of-a-century ago, I concluded a feature article entitled “The Struggle For Sovereignty”, written for New Zealand Political Review, with the following sentences:
New Zealanders are heading into a great storm of change. Much that is precious to us will pass away. As Pakeha we have grown accustomed to being the colonisers rather than the colonised. Loss of power will be a new experience for us. As the second great wave of colonisation washes over us, our best chance of survival will be to reach out for the hands of the tangata whenua – whose feet are sunk deepest in the earth of Aotearoa. In the storm of change that is coming, the strength which that position gives to Māori will make them the only solid point around which everything else twists and turns. If we, as Pakeha, do not reach out and grasp that strength, the fury of the storm will blow us far away.
That storm is now upon us.
A very interesting and insightful article. And probably an accurate summation of the trend. It may or may not be fully reflected i the 2023 election, but ultimately change of this nature will occur, irrespective of which major party leads the government.
There is a sense of an unstoppable force, both on the nature of governance, but also climate change policy. You only have to read comments on conservative blogs, notably Kiwiblog, to understand the hard right know they have lost the argument against climate change. Their refuge is to retreat deeper into denialism.
Actually the climate change denialists are more of a function of age and traditional status, rather than being hard right in an ideological sense. Many of the commenters on Kiwiblog are older, typically retired. Quite a number of them note that their children and grandchildren have a different view on climate change issues. They usually accuse their children and grandchildren of being swept up by a trend and are ignoring “real” science. Of course they don’t think climatologists are real scientists, so they quite comfortable in ignoring them. However, you do get the sense they know they have lost the argument, and that power has moved away from them.
Anyone remotely interested in politics knows, at least as far as New Zealand is concerned, political power has irrevocably moved away from the baby boomers. Though not yet in the United States, though surely that is only 4 or 6 years away.
Trouble is there is no co governance in the treaty.
But there is the promise of equal rights.
Removing the very basis of a democracy – one person one vote, unmandated is wrong and should be criminal-in fact it’s actively working against the principle of equal rights which IS enshrined in the treaty.
I don’t think you would find a legal point of view that agreed with you in terms of what obligations are under the treaty. The one person one vote line is probably not based on reality either.
“Trouble is there is no co governance in the treaty”.. There doesn’t need to be.. It is a philosophical shift rather than a line by line enactment that is being mooted..
Did you honestly think that people who would pull the “bait and switch” on a whole race of people would have been stupid enough to give them any contestable stake in their power base? Seriously?
Your point is a purely bureaucratic one…
If a person or group is deemed to have a right to something, then a majority, even if they don’t like it, cannot really contravene that right. That seems implicit in the meaning of the term “right”. So democracy is irrelevant in that context.
Probably not the game changer Labour want you to believe, actually, the one they tried so hard to hide! McAnulty let the cat out of the bag, he and his government have abandoned one person one vote. Don’t recall them campaigning on that? Wonder why?
But I’m sure PW Botha used to wax lyrical on a special South African type democracy too!
Sorry to disagree but for all it’s faults and that we all don’t always get what we want, one person one vote is far superior to anything else going, bar none! Especially something as vague as this “kiwi” styles thing.
The Political Review–Bruce Jesson’s old Banner that Chris took over. Those were the days when political debate could take weeks or months rather than milli–seconds online. The voracious pace of todays politics can lead to hair trigger responses rather than reflection and dialectical thought.
Generational differences are indeed plausible with Kieran McAnulty. My son was schooled in the Far North with a large Māori student quotient, and in his adult city life has only a handful of Pākehā friends, most of his circle being Korean, Rarotongan, Chinese & Māori. The world is different for new gens, numbers of whom have only known a digital world.
For his next trick perhaps Mr McAnulty could turn his attention to retiring Roger‘n’Ruth’s toxic legacy and discuss that in plain talk…
A small correction, TG.
NZ Political Review was founded in 1992 by myself and my Dad. It was published for 14 years – coming to an end in 2005.
In 1996, NZPR joined forces with Bruce Jesson’s “Republican” – a brief collaboration that lasted until Bruce’s death in 1999.
NZPR was always my banner, comrade. It was the Republican that got taken over 😉
Jolly good. Best to get such things correct. The mists of time…unless you manage to file everything of course.
Having John Tamihere utter abject and inflammatory nonsense about there being no need for co-governance in water management because Maori own 100% of the water will not help matters. A storm is upon us indeed.
Mike ” Newstalk ZB ” Yardly sees it differently in a right wing sort of a way.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/300855277/three-waters-reforms-have-disaster-written-all-over-them-with-latest-changes
Probably not the game changer Labour want you to believe, actually, the one they tried so hard to hide! McAnulty let the cat out of the bag, he and his government have abandoned one person one vote. Don’t recall them campaigning on that? Wonder why?
But I’m sure PW Botha used to wax lyrical on a special South African type democracy too!
Sorry to disagree but for all it’s faults and that we all don’t always get what we want, one person one vote is far superior to anything else going, bar none! Especially something as vague as this “kiwi” styles thing.
Well, at least we’re starting to talk about co-governance, for the last 2 years its been taboo. But this article Chris shows we’ve got a long way to go. Because of the ills you listed such as busted unions and low home ownership levels, could you cite any actual evidence that young people prefer some other form of government in response? Any when you say another form of democracy, let’s be clear, co-governance isn’t democracy. Just about anyone’s definition of co-governance is one person one vote. A system that gives, lets be honest 8% of the population 50% of the say (because not all Maori are going to sign up to this), just isn’t democracy anymore.
And what about the many checks and balances we’ll need to ensure this skewing does not get misused, beyond vague assurances. Because at the end of the day, the tyranny of the majority will always be preferable to its corollary, the tyranny of the minority. But square that circle Chris and you’ve got me on board.
Don’t hold your breath Mike.
Thanks for the fantastic article Chris.
You summed it up precisely.
This Boomer agrees with you whole-heartedly, KP.
A ‘new democracy’ isn’t democracy though, it’s a direct flight to hell
The concept of one person, one vote works. It might not be perfect but it is without question the least bad option
Shared management of resources such as the Ureweras as outlined by Ben Thomas James sense to a point. The burning of his there hasn’t pointed towards it working for all New Zealanders.
How that idea can then be applied to John Tamahere’s Stuff article that Maori own all the water and therefore by default all the infrastructure I’m not sure.
What does seem to be clear though is that there isn’t anywhere that I know of where a society based on one group having a greater say in affairs due to ethnicity or any other criteria has been more successful than a democracy based on the fundamental principal of one person one vote
It is a game changer that Kieran is saying the quiet bit out loud.
The polls will show whether you’re right Chris. For this country’s sake, I hope you are wrong.
I guess we take from your comment Matt that you want us to continue on the enviromentally destructive path we are on.
Why on earth would you think that?
It always strikes me as bizarre how quick people seem to be these days to ignore a point and assume that because someone is making it they must believe something else that is unrelated. Pretty much everyone agrees water infrastructure is stuffed in a lot of places in NZ and that it needs to be fixed. Some people apparently think that doing so requires both a loss of local control and an abandonment of democracy.
Alternative structures that would achieve substantively the same aim without losing local control exist and would be just as cheap if not cheaper. Alternative structures that lose local control but don’t abandon democracy exist. And would be as cheap if not cheaper.
Try your best to discuss political matters in good faith… when you assume, you make an ass out of U
I am well past believing local councils are capable of delivering on our water problems.
The belief that ‘democracy’ achieves sustainable outcomes for infrastructure is clearly not supported by the current state of our water, transport, or many other services, so I would welcome Iwi representation, as promised by the Treaty, in decision making.
Hell no, we hope he’s right!
You want to regress to a state where someone’s political power is a function of the consequences of their birth?
Do you place no value on universal human rights or the principles of the enlightenment?
It’s not regression, the polls will show that.
It is literally regression regardless of whether the polls show it or not. Someone’s level of political power and participation being a function of their sociodemographic group is the oldest form of human social organization. The long arc of history curves away from that and towards egalitarian democracy as society gets less racist, sexist and classist. We reached equality in political rights for all groups in the 20th century, and have been reaching equality in social rights in the 21st (i.e trans rights).
Apparently ‘progressives’ now want to regress and treat people not based on the content of their character, but the colour of their skin.
Nonsense
We are no where near an ‘egalitarian democracy’; with political parties getting huge donations from business interests and overseas ownership of many strategic assets, such a utopian world is not going to happen. We do not have your ‘equality in political rights’, as obvious from our statistics, that you claim.
“Could the Māori make a worse job of looking after Aotearoa than Pakeha democracy? Could co-governance with mana whenua be any worse than co-governance with capitalists?”
Of course they could get worse. It is a big assumption to believe that many Iwi corporations are not driven by the same Neo-liberal & capitalistic forces that drives the rest of New Zealand. That Maori leaders are not susceptible to the same corruption that infects Pakeha politicians? Donations, bribes or koha? That there isn’t the same desire to just clip the ticket? To add layers of bureaucracy & tribal consultation, that delays or halts projects, unless sufficiently “oiled”? Things are definitely getting worse, but if you think this is the solution, then I suspect that you don’t understand humans or the power of Neo-liberalism.
You say it for me Helen.
Co-governance is not a Maori governance system rather it’s a neo liberal attempt at equity. We’d be better off focusing on equality – lifting Maori as a whole from poverty, from perpetually renting, from being at the wrong end of so many stats and then you would not need co-governance, a foot up; it would instead be a level playing field.
Co governance is a myth picked up on by the right and driven by business leaders and right wing media.
Evidence…John Keys National government of 9 years in coalition, thus co governance with the Maori party. End of story.
Neil who?
Agree Neil
So repression under capitalism or repression under the treaty.
Hardly seems worth bothering about…
IMO, McAnulty comes across as a sociopath.
Hope he’s right. A lot of anti-Maori discourse on r-wing sites like Muriel Newman’s New Zealand Centre for Political Research and Bassett Brash and Hide – but possibly the same people? Called out MN’s lot for being racist whingers (whingeing about number of Maori nominations for the Ockhams, would you believe…), and was blocked. (Saw CT was on their Breaking News blog recently.) Then Muriel Newman parachuted into Bassett Brash and Hide. Had to move from there before I was pushed….
All the oldies I know don’t care who runs the country. I think they are quite happy to vote for a co-governance framework and see how it unfolds for better or worse. They are prepared to at least give it a go.
In the past they have seen all types of politicians and parties come and go plus install huge experimental changes to society and politics.
Thanks Verity!
Co-governance with mana whenua? What proportion of the Maori in Auckland are mana whenua in Auckland?
The notion that Maori are better connected to nature and the environment and would never sell water assets is beyond fanciful.
Here’s Tamihere in 2019 advocating as part of his mayoral push to sell 49 per cento of Watercare. Even Phil Goff was shocked:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/113921805/mayoral-candidate-john-tamihere-partprivatise-aucklands-watercare?
Nice try Chris but I don’t think you quite get there
Nope.
Neil who?
I scrolled this far and decided, save for highlighting this gem of a quote; “Could co-governance with mana whenua be any worse than co-governance with capitalists?” this posting doesn’t need my input.
I’m reminded of Shadbolts concrete mixer named Karl Marx. It apparently worked well in theory.
Co – governance may sound fine but the devil is in the detail. I’m not going to stand in its way, but I hope that the future governance of Aotearoa is for all Aotearoans. I don’t wish us to replace the tyranny of colonial institutions that favour a pakeha elite with further divisiveness. We are now a multi ethnic and cultural country, this offers us a chance to create a better, more inclusive nation.
So Labour sort of finally fronting up around 2 years after introducing 3 waters is to be lauded? Painted into a corner and purposeful tactic to postpone til as close to the election as poss.
Comments are closed.