'I was frustrated': Bishop explains music award comments
During Walker's performance of Māori Ki te Ao on Thursday last week in Auckland performers took to the stage with flags displaying Toitū Te Tiriti - a movement borne out of opposition to the controversial and voted down Treaty Principles Bill and other government legislation.
Bishop, who was in attendance, was seen criticising the performance, and has since said he should have kept the comments to himself.
Today he told reporters his comments were not directed specifically at Walker.
"I was frustrated and annoyed by the sort of overt politicking around it.
"It's not about Stan Walker, I actually quite like Stan Walker, actually quite liked his performance. It was just the sort of politicisation of it that frustrated me."
Bishop singled out the Toitū Te Tiriti "banners and paraphernalia" as the source of his frustration, not the performance itself.
He said he would not be apologising to Walker.
"It's not clear what I'd be apologising for."
The producers of the Aotearoa Music Awards said Bishop's remarks had "no place" at the ceremony. In a statement, they said they were committed to creating a safe, respectful and inclusive environment.
"The Awards respect and honour te ao Māori and we were proud to support Stan with his vision for his powerful rendition of Māori Ki Te Ao ."
Bishop's comments led to backlash from other performers, including Don McGlashan, who was seen on video confronting Bishop.
But the National MP said the irony was he is a "huge" Don McGlashan fan.
"I love the Mutton Birds. But Don McGlashan is a noteworthy non-supporter of the National Party.
"People might remember the 2008 election, in which he expressed some frustration at Anchor Me , which is a great Mutton Birds tune, being used by TVNZ on the election night coverage," Bishop said.
"His political views are quite well-known. But look, it is what it is - he's entitled to his views in the same way I'm entitled to mine."
Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Paul Goldsmith, who was also at the awards, brushed off whether the performance was controversial.
"There's always controversy at music awards. It goes without saying."
Māori Crown relations minister Tama Potaka said he disagreed with Bishop's comments, but they were for the minister to respond to.
"I absolutely love Stan Walker and his commitment to te reo, and the mahi that he does particularly in his engagement with Ratana, the hāhi. I don't agree with Minister Bishop's comments, however those are a matter for him to comment on," Potaka said.
Labour's Māori Development spokesperson Willie Jackson said Bishop, as a music fan, should know that music had always been political.
"He should know music better than anyone. Look around the world, people have been doing that for years. Whether it's Bob Marley, Bono, whatever, it's been happening, it's not like something new.
"He should talk to his Shihad heroes, 'cos the lead singer there's got pretty good politics too."
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ's Morning Report programme today he was comfortable with Bishop's response, and had spoken to him over the weekend.
"I just got his side of the story about what he said and it was exactly as reported. He corrected it well before I got to him... he just acknowledged he should have kept his thoughts to himself.
"The bottom line is, your listeners aren't losing a lot of sleep over what a politician sharing his opinion on some music was about."
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Bishop's behaviour was disappointing, but it was for Luxon to bring his ministers in line.
"You've got to remember when you're a government minister that you're on public display all of the time."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
14 minutes ago
- 1News
Iwi anger at law change which would strip customary rights in harbour
Coastal iwi could soon be stripped of their customary rights over Aotea Harbour, west of Hamilton, as the Government presses ahead with its plan to amend the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. The legislative move would overturn recent decisions in the High Court to award customary marine title to iwi. In November 2024, the court recognised Ngāti Te Wehi and Ngāti Whakamarurangi's customary marine title over the harbour and protected its customary rights. But the Government wants to toughen up the test for customary marine title and its proposed law change would overturn the court's decision. Aotea Harbour (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT Negotiated by New Zealand First as part of the coalition agreement, the party's deputy leader Shane Jones said the courts have made the test too easy. "The law from time to time needs to be refined when it falls into the hands of adventurous jurists," said Jones. However, Ngāti Te Wehi has vowed to fight on. 'We'll keep fighting, mō ake, ake, ake tonu (for as long as it takes),' said iwi claimant Miki Apiti. He said iwi members 'were up in arms in joy' at the court ruling at the time, but now it could all be for nothing. And fellow claimant lawyer Harry Clatworthy said a significant amount of time and effort has gone into their case. 'To make all these kaumātua who have spent hundreds of hours of time and effort, and three weeks in court, to possibly go back, and at a base level to tell them their customary rights don't exist after living here for 800 years, it's shocking.' ADVERTISEMENT 'Important to get this right' Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said he understands the frustration. 'But we believe it's very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand and everybody has an interest on what goes on in the coastline,' he said. Māori currently need to prove they have exclusively 'used and occupied' an area of coastline from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption. 'What the new test does,' said Clatworthy, 'it makes it easier for the Attorney-General or Crown to say there was substantial interruption to the use and occupation of the harbour.' Goldsmith argued that everybody in the country has an interest in the coastline and that they are working on getting the 'balance right'. Under existing law there are already protections in place for the general public allowing for public access and recreational fishing and Apiti said the iwi has 'never, ever' stopped anyone from entering the harbour. ADVERTISEMENT Claimant Miki Apiti and lawyer Harry Clatworthy (Source: 1News) Clatworthy added: 'For the Crown to tell them their rights don't exist because people have fished the area, because boats have driven through the area – something they have no ability to stop – is wrong.' 'Every inlet is a wāhi tapu' - Aotea Harbour steeped in significance Apiti said the area is of particular importance to Ngāti Te Wehi. 'This is where our tūpuna lived… this used to be an old pā site, pā tuwatawata, around this particular area, until the, I would say, the late 1800s. Then they shifted from here,' he said. He pointed out other areas where there were pā sites, as well as the place where the korotangi bird artefact – a sacred taonga that is said to have been brought over on Tainui waka – was found. He added the ancestral waka Aotea, which the harbour is named for, is buried in the sand dunes of Oioroa at the northern entrance to the harbour. ADVERTISEMENT 'You might as well say every inlet is a wāhi tapu to us,' Apiti said. Today, Aotea Harbour is surrounded by a substantial amount of Māori freehold land and has four marae on its shores. The Government intends to pass the legislation by the end of October.
NZ Herald
40 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Chris Hipkins to speak on decision to skip Covid-19 Royal Commission inquiry public hearings
Labour leader and former Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins is to discuss his decision not to attend the second set of public hearings for the Covid-19 Royal Commission. He is set to speak to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB at 7.07am. You can listen live below. The hearings have been called off after key witnesses, including former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, refused to appear. Those witnesses, including Hipkins and former ministers Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall, are still co-operating with the inquiry. In June last year, a 'phase two' of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons was established by the National-led coalition Government. It was scheduled to take place after the completion of the original inquiry set up under the previous Labour Government, which ministers have already appeared before in private. Chairman Grant Illingworth has the power to summon people to appear before the inquiry, but said he would not use it on Ardern and the other ministers as there weren't any grounds for it. 'On balance, we are of the view that a summons is undesirable, given that the former ministers continue to co-operate with the evidence-gathering of the inquiry. 'It is our opinion that the use of summonses to achieve their participation at a public hearing would be legalistic and adversarial, which our terms of reference prohibit,' Illingworth said. He said he still believed public hearings would enhance public confidence in the inquiry's processes by enabling the public to see former ministers, who have critical insights into the pandemic response, questioned in public. Hipkins, appearing on Herald NOW last month, said he had issues with the way the second phase of the Royal Commission had been set up, particularly the decision to exclude from consideration the years that NZ First was governing with Labour. 'The fact that the [Royal Commission] terms of reference specifically exclude decisions made when NZ First were part of the [Labour-led coalition] Government … I think the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views. 'That seems to have been specifically written into the terms of reference that they get maximum airtime.' Objections of Ardern and the other ministers, published in a minute of the inquiry, included the convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries in private, and departing from that convention would undermine confidence. They were also concerned that the livestreaming and publication of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those recordings being 'tampered with, manipulated or otherwise misused', a risk the inquiry 'ought to have foreseen and planned for'. Other witnesses raised concerns that providing evidence at public hearings might bring risks of abuse being directed at them and their families. Hipkins is standing firm on the witnesses' decision. 'We have shown up to the inquiry, I have shown up to the inquiry. I have been interviewed by them twice,' he told reporters yesterday. 'I have provided written evidence to the inquiry, I answered every question they had and I attended the interview they scheduled for me. 'They asked for two hours, but they ran out of questions after an hour.' Hipkins said he did not co-ordinate his approach with Ardern and would not speak on behalf of her. 'She is still a very close friend of mine. We have people representing us in common, but any suggestion we colluded with this is wrong.' 'Deserve the basic respect of accountability' National MP Chris Bishop accused Hipkins of running from his record. 'Fresh from fobbing off Treasury's report into Labour's spending, [he] is avoiding accountability by refusing to front up to the Royal Commission,' he said. 'By first dismissing Treasury's report and now refusing to front, Chris Hipkins is telling New Zealanders he does not care about the effects his decisions have had on Kiwis.' Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said Ardern, Verrall and Hipkins' refusal to publicly appear before the commission was a change from 'invading our living rooms daily'. 'Hipkins and co loved the limelight at 1pm every day. They wielded extraordinary powers over citizens' lives, dismissing those who questioned them as uncaring. Now they're refusing to even show up, what a contrast,' he said. 'Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have already engaged with the inquiry, sharing experiences of how their lives were upended. 'They deserve the basic respect of accountability,' Seymour said.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
How to design a wellbeing ‘meta-law' that could actually make a difference
Laws that change the basis on which all other decisions are made have had mixed degrees of success. But a wellbeing act that focused on a few concrete targets – and measured the spending required to meet them – would be a sharp-edged way to hold governments to account for their social and environmental failures. Some politicians play the game better than others, but the smartest ones change the rules of the game itself. Most laws create something: a new penalty for shoplifting, a different type of school, an enhanced entitlement to paid parental leave. Some laws, though, change the basis on which all other decisions are made. You could call them embedding laws or meta-laws. Some are uncontroversial. The 1993 Electoral Act, for instance, is the bedrock of the democratic system, determining how elections are run, MPs elected, and political parties registered. Other such laws, though, embed a specific view of the world. For a long time, left-wingers have complained that the 1980s neoliberals entrenched a market-fundamentalist mindset through three interlocking pieces of legislation. The 1986 State-Owned Enterprises Act put profit ahead of the public interest. The 1987 State Services Act, while it was on the statute book, made government departments operate more like private companies. And the 1989 Public Finance Act nudged governments to borrow and spend less. Rather than do a specific 'thing', these acts changed the terms on which all government agencies did their 'things'. The last Labour government had a penchant for passing meta-laws – albeit with mixed success. The Zero Carbon Act reorients policy towards climate action, and creates an independent commission and reporting processes that seek to embarrass governments into cutting emissions. David Parker's 2023 Taxation Principles Reporting Act, which forced governments to justify their policies' impact on equality, was designed to nudge all future tax laws in an egalitarian direction. Jacinda Ardern's 2018 Child Poverty Reduction Act contained no policies to reduce child poverty, but created official measures and targets against which future governments could be held to account. But while the Zero Carbon Act has had enduring influence, the others have not: Parker's law was repealed the moment National took power, and Ardern's is largely ignored. Embedding acts, in short, are no sure thing. Another recent attempt, this time from the right, is David Seymour's controversial Regulatory Standards Bill. Although a pure reporting mechanism, with no hard power of its own, it nonetheless creates processes that seek to elevate private property rights and nudge ministers away from legislating in the public interest. How far it will succeed is an open question. Welsh lessons The latest idea for a meta-law, however, holds far more promise. The Wellbeing Alliance Aotearoa, a recently formed NGO, is running a campaign called Tomorrow Together, the centrepiece of which is a proposed Future Generations Act. The act is modelled on the Welsh equivalent, which requires public bodies to follow 'sustainable development' principles and promote the country's long-term cultural, social, environmental and economic wellbeing. Public agencies have to set wellbeing objectives and take 'all reasonable steps' to achieve them. The act also established a future generations commissioner, who makes recommendations that public bodies must – once again – take all reasonable steps to follow. Finally, the act requires Welsh ministers to set national indicators that show whether wellbeing is really on the rise. They include carbon emissions, community safety, poverty rates, productivity growth, the number of Welsh speakers, and participation in democratic decision-making. There is much to like here, but also a few things to give one pause. Of the 50 indicators, fewer than half are headed in the right direction, suggesting they may not have much influence over state action. It is hard to maintain government, media or public focus on so many measures. And, being set by ministers, the indicators are neither determined nor owned by the public. Picking five to 10 How, then, might a wellbeing act gain more teeth? The answer to this question begins with understanding why, year after year, economic debate is dominated by the demand for governments to run a budget surplus. Surpluses have assumed this status not just because they are often desirable but also because they generate a simple and widely understood measure of 'success'. While our governments run budget surpluses, however, they are often racking up environmental and social deficits, polluting the countryside and allowing poverty to rise. The budget gets balanced on the backs of the poor, and at the expense of the planet. Governments sometimes pay a price for this, if media stories of social misery and environmental pollution become too powerful to ignore. But the quest for a surplus continues to dominate debate because, by contrast, other measures are vague and amorphous. What does a social or environmental 'deficit' look like? Even if we knew, which ones would matter most? How would we measure them? And how would we stop governments from inventing their own, easily satisfied targets? Social and environmental measures, in short, need to be made more concrete, for both policymakers and the general public. The first step is probably to pick just five to 10 measures to target. (This would avoid the fate of the last Labour government's 'wellbeing' approach, which got bogged down in 141 different measures.) Why so few? Because many people, among them the Nobel prizewinner Joseph Stiglitz – one of the godfathers of wellbeing economics – believe a small suite of measures is needed to focus attention. 'One can grasp five to 10,' Sitglitz told the Treasury in 2023. How should we select those measures? A government could of course pick them itself, but that would have neither true democratic legitimacy nor real staying power. Imagine, instead, that we had a genuine national conversation – an overused phrase, admittedly – about the social and environmental measures most important to us. Who knows what people might choose – safety in their community, swimmable rivers, connections to whenua and reo, higher living standards, something else? Discussions could be held up and down the country, allowing individuals to come together, articulate different versions of the good life, and aggregate their views into a national vision. A citizens' assembly – a representative sample of, say, 100 New Zealanders, 'New Zealand in one room' – could be convened to make the final call, in full view of the wider public and with complete access to experts and evidence. (Countless other process choices, of course, would have to be made.) The resulting suite of five to 10 measures, embedded in legislation, would have immense democratic legitimacy, embodying the considered will of the public. And it could be renewed every decade or so. Countering the power of the 'surplus' To sharpen matters still further, though, imagine if the national conversation generated targets for each wellbeing goal: the best cancer survival rates in the world, for instance, or a halving of child poverty within a decade. That would hone government accountability to a well-defined point. And we might go further still. If we could estimate, however roughly, the spending needed to reach each target, and we added them all up, we would effectively have a measure of the social and environmental deficit – the amount by which spending on those outcomes was 'under' the line even while the government's budget surplus was 'over' it. This might constitute, finally, a number to compete with the hallowed surplus, creating a sharp-edged way to hold governments to account for their social and environmental failures. Imagine the effect of Jack Tame saying to a future prime minister, 'Sure, you've run a $1bn surplus, but what about the social and environmental deficit, currently at $23bn and worsening?' Embedding our shared goals The ideas above are naturally speculative. But even if all this were practicable and came to pass, how much difference would it make? Meta-laws can be undone, and even those that survive may have less power than their framers imagined. But the lesson from laws like the Public Finance Act is that they can have enduring power if they encapsulate elite opinion, the public's 'common sense', or – ideally – both. And this would plausibly be the case here: wellbeing economics is now mainstream policy thinking, and most people care about far more than just GDP growth. The results of such a priority-setting process, and the measures and targets selected, would not necessarily be the ones I would choose, nor those that you, the individual reader, would prefer. But that's democracy. The point is not to advance our own narrow interests but to orient politics, in an enduring manner, towards the social and environmental goals endorsed by New Zealanders as a whole. That is the kind of accountability worth embedding.
