Does the coalition between National and ACT usher in a new age of vindictive political decision-making? Or does it build on and enhance the progressive wins both sides have made over the last few years?
Personal opinion. I am interested in the concept of retribution politics, or a zero-sum game policy whereby National or ACT policies can only be rationalised by totally defeating Māori by as much as the gains made in recent years. I am also interested in the different characteristics of relationships: symbiotic, mutualistic, commensalistic, and parasitic.
While coalition alliances form between political parties, most New Zealanders are in the dark about what will happen next. There are many views, Māori, non-Māori, European, and immigrant, as it pertains to the idea of cultures working together to lead and govern the country.
Starting with some Māori views (of which there are many). These views are a collation of my discussions with colleagues, whānau, and friends.
Kaupapa driven Māori people are certainly worried about how extreme the pushback on Māori issues will be by a National/ACT coalition. I personally fear a zero-sum game approach. That is, a very hard push back by ACT on any equity initiatives suggested by National. My deep fear is of a capitulation by National to appease right-wing factions, like how the USA Republican Party dysfunctions at present. There is certainly a hardening of right-wing interests.
A quick take of comments by outgoing politicians and opinion column commentators suggests that actions by National and ACT might include:
- Systematically reviewing the appropriateness of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to all legislative and administrative functions of government and redefining its principles to accommodate a new National/ACT view led by some kind of referendum
- Treaty settlement processes will be stifled.
- Bilingual education and the history curriculum will be discouraged.
- Specialised healthcare authorities will be dismantled.
- Broadcasting funding will be rationalised for one public entity.
- Language inclusion and bilingualism in projects will become nice to have.
- Cultural responsiveness planning will stop being agenderized at a senior level.
- Attitudes towards Māori people will become negative.
- Māori people and culture will be seen as parasitic to progress.
- The Matariki holiday will be for the domain of "over-bearing Māori purists and traditionalists".
Some of these may seem overly doomsday; however, with the current language employed over the last 18 months by National and ACT, as well as a swell of media coverage, these issues are certainly burning in the minds of many. There are many who can't wait for the new coalition to pull the trigger on those campaign promises.
A bunch of practical questions arise. Will we see the wide-scale, gradual dissolution of many equity initiatives? Will National kick off another round of low-value 'full and final' treaty settlements? Will the Justices and lawyers seek interpretations of laws that align with a more populous framing or position? Will there be more Māori protests? Will media position 'Māori issues' as negative or problematic? Will we see a rise in off-the-cuff anti-Māori jokes, discreet Māori side-swipes, and bolder, more aggressive oppressor attitudes? Will Māori resistance become galvanised and coordinated?
The decisions that are made by this incoming coalition might encourage any one of these outcomes. For me, the key question is: who will control the level of focus on what gets prioritised? Is it one illustrious leader? Or will there be an official zero-sum game political retribution balance sheet organised by ACT and National and enacted by their Cabinet?
Imagine a system whereby Cabinet tests retribution ideas by seeding concepts in press conferences, measuring public sentiment, and then conducting an investment analysis to understand how hard it is to pull the trigger based on sentiment support findings. I don't think this worked for Labour very well (they picked poor ideas like MIQ and failed to ignore the evidence to suspend them).
Or will the Māori politicians in National provide some kind of balancing view? Like the Labour Māori caucus?
Or will Luxon and Cabinet make a snap judgement call? Or will they default to some abstract theory like blood quantum theory or percentage of population rationalisation? For example, Māori are X percent of the population, but only X of X agree on Māori issues, so they only get X of X percent value from this initiative?
Where are the checks and balances in the Cabinet system of thinking? They have new leadership with an older National framework. How do these old frameworks fit with new thinking?
Let's now consider another Māori perspective. A dislocated person is someone whose grandparents and parents hid their Māori side from them, or they were raised without any connection to their culture. There are many Māori people by descent without any experience of being involved in a kaupapa or upbringing in Te Ao Māori. Many have felt uncomfortable under the pressure to re-identify or re-claim their Māoritanga. 'I have survived without my Māori side, so why start pretending now'?' I never had it, so I am not going to try to claim it now; that's not authentic'. I want to acknowledge the awkwardness that this current political environment may generate for those who have chosen to embrace their taha-Māori, their Māori side.
For Tāngata Tiriti, or New Zealanders of European descent, immigrants, and those without a connection to Māori culture, it is also quite confusing. I have seen many viewpoints on Māori partnership in my day-to-day work and life. A smorgasboard of views—from vocal anti-Māori perspectives to quiet reaffirming nods, to distressed body language around being in the same room as tatooed Māori, to many unusual direct questions and comments, to many turning away or into their phones. I think it is fair to say that the spectrum of diversity is very high, especially when it comes to understanding and connecting to Māori people, kaupapa, and culture. I have split what I have seen into two groups: the closed-off and the open.
In one camp, it is all closed off. That is, Māori are parasites. Those without a desire to delve into New Zealand's historical injustices, without a basic understanding of New Zealand history, in a lived experience without connection to anything Māori, or an intense dislike of Māori, will certainly be keen to put Māori in their place.
We already know what these people will do. It is not clear exactly where these folks sit in the hierarchy of various organisations and what influence they exert. We know the knowns—the politicians, the agitators, the rally organisers, and the outspoken media voices. But we don't know those in hidden high-power positions, such as senior executives, senior media producers, senior editors, property rationalizers, investment advisors, senior policy advisors, and senior public servants. Those people have a lot of sway over equity outcomes, framing, infrastructure, the built environment, and inclusion.
Conversely, the open That is, those with empathy. Those with a little knowledge of New Zealand history, or raised in rural areas with high Māori populations, or with some experience in the justice, education, and health systems, or a real tangible connection to a Māori friendship or whānau. Many are feeling quite concerned about the sudden reversal in cultural outlook. How will this affect their relationship with kaupapa Māori? How will they connect with Māori colleagues? Should they still celebrate Matariki? Can they still study Te Reo Māori and promote Te Reo Māori without getting called a woke sell-out? Can they enter Māori spaces and be welcomed without suspicion? Can they be pro-equity? Or do they have to hide a side of themselves from certain groups of people? Or just forget about equity all together?
The reality is that we all sit at many places on the spectrum dynamically, depending on who we are currently associated with. Spaces are created by people, and people have different values. Group-think, gangs, mobs, circles, alumni, gatherings, hui—all these different groups have different interaction rules. For example, a group of Kiwis overseas are keen to wear a pounamu and do the haka, but when they return home, they think that too much has changed, so celebrating Matariki is just a step too far. While fishing with the lads, it's ok to bust out racist jokes, but when at a Māori friend's house, it is not ok. For Māori, it's ok to criticise Māori pronunciation on the marae, but not at school. It's ok to scold Māori kids, but not other kids because they are fragile?
It is complex.
Turning back to the political leadership, the campaigning, the media interviews, and the debates, we have all seen that Luxon doesn't have a handle on these complexities. For a start, his Māori pronunciation is a shambles, and his foundational understanding of both versions of the Treaty of Waitangi is poor (as seen on Te Ao with Moana). However, my belief is that this doesn't make him a racist.
What we do know is that Luxon will play to his strengths: running a corporation, generating revenue (probably through the sale of New Zealand land), and influencing non-Māori people. The problem is that the spaces that National and ACT create are not welcome places for Māori to be Māori, to contribute Māori thinking, and to reflect on Māori value positions. It's not valued. It's not factored in. It was certainly not procured. The options I see unfolding with regards to Māori initiatives are:
- Group 1 Retribution/Utu: Areas where equity progress has been labelled as 'unfair' by outspoken media or political agitators will be recified by a zero-sum-game approach, maybe even zero-sum-game + plus. That means National/ACT will want maximum utu/revenge against Māori initiatives and won't be happy until this is rectified. Their loudest pundits will be their litmus test; that's Newstalk, Hobsons Pledge, and Julian Batchelor fan clubs. My concern is that those groups are always angry about something, and if they wake up on the wrong side of the bed and the first thing they see is a Māori, then Māori might as well take the blame again. The litmus test is never consistent.
- Group 2 Proportional Model Problem Solving: Issues around healthcare and management of services will likely follow a proportional representation model. Māori are 15% of health patients, so they get 15% of services. Any outliers or extreme problems may be given more money, but on a case-by-case basis.
- Group 3: Those Things That Make Us Kiwi: Areas where Māori culture is seen as an intrinsic benefit will continue to be celebrated, but on Pākehā terms. For example, the haka and the All Blacks, Kiwi high-achievers (that happen to be Māori), Kiwi-Māori students outstanding in a non-Māori field, and successful Kiwi-Māori export businesses
Again, this is all a hypothesis, and I am not saying that National and Luxon are anti-Māori. This article, 'A Reminder of the Awkwardness of Cultural Political Partnerships' is about acknowledging the importance of informed decision-making and observing and acknowledging positive Māori role-modelling so we can develop less destructive approaches. So we don't short-cut what we think the value of Māori is.
I believe in proper analysis being given across the board to a variety of issues, not a simplistic rationale that was campaigned to success by National and ACT. So therefore, there is a need to expand on this article.
Successful relationships are complex. In some circumstances, the relationship will be symbiotic, where there is a functioning of both components in which both sides contribute to each other's support, such as bilingual broadcasting, the Department of Conversation, Te Pūkenga, professional sports like women's rugby, and community initiatives like Waka Ama.
In some ways, the mutualistic relationship will work, whereby each side receives net benefits but doesn't have shared benefits. The Treaty of Waitangi is a work in progress; however, there are several government agencies like the Ministry of Education, Whānau Ora, the Ministry of Justice, and rehabilitation services whereby taking into account Māori approaches lowers the strain on other functions that both Māori and non-Māori share.
There are definitely relationships that will be commensalistic, whereby Māori and non-Māori do not benefit or are not harmed while in collaboration. Forestry, fisheries, energy, and spectrum settlements often fall into this space, as the assignment or allocation of assets does not directly benefit non-Māori or Māori; however, they do not harm either side. Ultimately, these asset management businesses are passively symbiotic, as more service providers are required. This style of relationship is a classic example of the quote, "What is good for Māori is also what is good for New Zealand."
There are also parasitic relationships where either side is harmed, such as sharing the haka and intellectual property or getting a cultural consultation tick.
It is up to those who see the benefit in equity and diversity and who have had a myriad of positive experiences to continue to offer aroha and support—to keep the path open for partnership. To be champions and advocates. To illustrate if the relationship is symbiotic, mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic.
Right now, with a large volume of anti-Māori sentiment in the campaign build-up, it is not that easy. We are living in a world of excessive information, curated by not just an oligopoly of media outlets but by millions of social media posts and their ranking algorithms.
So here are my current focus areas for the next six months:
- Enhance discerning abilities: rapidly identify blockers and agigators who will derail well-meaning efforts to bring a positive Māori perspective to initiatives, projects, and spaces.
- Create warm, welcoming spaces for allies.
- Signal grateful acknowledgement to passive or shy supporters.
- Support Luxon and his team when they exhibit an interest in equity-based partnerships, discovery phases, or engagement strategies.
- Be clear about what Māori culture and insights can be used in a respectful way and what uses are considered tokenistic and insulting.
- Be brave and call out those engaged in zero-sum-game retribution strategies.
To summarise, for those, like myself, at odds with National's and ACT's policies (as they were pitched), it is a time of re-alignment and re-affirmation of what works in terms of building alliances. It is time to critically analyse the purpose of our relationships. It is time to understand if we are comfortable with a relationship being mutualistic or commensalistic. As the saying goes, "a good friend is one that uplifts you as much as you uplift them".
Across all of our endeavours, we must ensure that there is equity for all of our partners.
Thank you. If you have any perspective, please send it through. All comments are treated with respect. Kia ora.