Pointless foreshore debate a distraction from economic crisis
Yet despite all this – or perhaps because of it – some within the coalition Government and fringe groups aligned to them think it's a good idea to have another argument about race.
Maybe that's not surprising. With the working and middle classes crying out for an explanation for why things are so bad and the country's prospects so bleak, some within the old political and business establishments dare not admit it is because of poor policy and commercial decisions they themselves contributed to over recent decades.
As in other nations facing seemingly irretrievable decline, it's much better to point to a minority and blame them.
'It's not your fault, or mine, that you're doing it tough,' this old elite tells those who are struggling.
'We're all just victims of the 'grievance economy' where Māori keep taking what is rightfully yours.'
The worst thing is that it works, at least with perhaps 20% of voters. That rump, which polls suggest consists mainly of white baby-boomer men, is particularly important electorally to NZ First and Act, who fight over them.
You may think that the biggest issues in this year's local government elections are out-of-control rates and councils' cumbersome and incompetent application of the Resource Management Act.
But, according to Hobson's Pledge, 'the most important fight of 2025' is around Māori wards.
'Across the country,' it says in an apocalyptic fund-raising email, 'local councils have become the frontline in a slow, stealthy assault on democracy. Behind closed doors, race-based policies are being pushed through. Co-governance is being installed without consent. And representation is being carved up based not on merit or votes, but on ancestry.'
Hobson's Pledge says it will 'go big with this campaign', including 'billboards, signage, social media, and engaging with new voices'.
The campaign's integrity is already under question, after it was revealed that Hobson's Pledge used, without her permission, a photograph of an elderly Māori woman in a billboard implying she opposes Māori wards.
Rotorua kuia Ellen Tamati is devastated after discovering her image is being used by a political lobby group that's pushing to abolish Māori wards. Photo / Aukaha News
In fact, she supports them. She never agreed for anyone to use her image commercially, and the agency which sold it anyway was clear it could not be used in advertising.
Hobson's Pledge has since asked the billboard company to remove the advertisement and said it would contact the woman to ensure she was okay and let her know her image was publicly available as a stock image.
Hobson's Pledge has form with this sort of thing, setting up a 'We Belong Aotearoa' campaign before the last election, falsely suggesting a grassroots movement by immigrants concerned about co-governance.
Next time, Hobson's Pledge ought to use one of its own supporters – of which it claims to have many – in its advertisements.
It might also give greater attention to telling the truth, after its advertising about the foreshore and seabed in the New Zealand Herald was found by the Advertising Standards Board to be materially misleading.
Hobson's Pledge will continue to do its thing, and its antics are probably best seen as another small price to pay for the benefits of free speech.
More worrying is internal coalition politics pushing Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith to proceed with new foreshore and seabed legislation.
This is certain to arouse all the passions of the Clark Government's 2003 and 2004 fiasco that the Key Government resolved so successfully in its first term by passing then-Attorney General Christopher Finlayson's Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011.
The Luxon Government – or at least a powerful faction within it – seems to want a repeat of Act's failed Treaty Principles Bill, with all the associated division and distraction from the real economic crises.
There might have been a case for the bill Goldsmith is fronting had the Supreme Court upheld a recent novel interpretation of Finlayson's legislation by the Court of Appeal. But the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal, making the proposed bill seem redundant.
We must now choose whether Finlayson or Goldsmith is likely to be the better jurist. Finlayson says the Supreme Court left things as Parliament intended back in 2011 and that Goldsmith's bill would compromise existing Māori rights.
Goldsmith says the Supreme Court made it too easy for Māori to have their rights recognised by the courts and that the bill is needed to return things to the status quo the Key Government established.
Since the whole foreshore and seabed controversy emerged in 2003, it has been based on what Finlayson calls a 'lie': concerns about public access to beaches.
Hobson's Pledge now goes so far as to claim there's a risk of 'kissing our entire coastline goodbye'.
Yet beach access was never an issue, even when the Court of Appeal made its original 2003 ruling that kicked off the controversy.
It certainly isn't an issue under the 2011 law or the Supreme Court's decisions.
The rights that an iwi can have recognised over bits of the foreshore and seabed are highly limited, and nothing like ordinary property rights.
Underlying all this is another lie: that there is something activist, radical or woke about the courts acknowledging Māori customary law.
Yet in Africa, India, Southeast Asia, North America and New Zealand, the British Empire and its common law always acknowledged that customary law continued after colonisation, unless it was specifically repealed.
The truly radical or activist judges have been those who historically tried to deny this.
It can be annoying when other people's legal rights are upheld, like farmers being able to stop hikers from walking across their property.
But that is no reason to deny such rights. To the contrary, it is an essential democratic principle that the specific legal rights of individuals and other minorities are upheld, whatever the majority may think.
It's wrong to keep changing the law on the foreshore and seabed or anything else when it looks like the courts may uphold some specific legal rights that someone else might find annoying.
If they can do it to an iwi, they can do it to you. And, with all New Zealand's economic and social crises, ask yourself whose interests are served by trying to turn your attention to race.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
35 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Whanganui educators voice concerns over NCEA overhaul
Whanganui educators are left with uncertainty after the Government's announcement on changes to the NCEA system for secondary school students. 'We've got more questions than answers,' Whanganui City College principal Peter Kaua said.
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
The battle for our schools
Comment: There is a familiar pattern to educational debate in New Zealand these days. The Government leaks an idea about a change it proposes, rumours circulate and eventually an announcement is made. There is a reaction. Principals comment on radio and TV; blogs are written and spread by groups such as DisruptED on social media or the Aotearoa Education Collective, who typically complain that teachers and educational experts weren't consulted. Pick your issue: the plan to ban phones in schools, the abolition of free school lunches, the halting of the 'curriculum refresh', structured literacy and the science of learning, moves to monitor school attendance, and most recently, Modern Learning Environments and plans to replace NCEA. Each can be treated as individual battles, or are they part of a wider 'war on learning'? As I see it, when taken together, these changes are part of a move to challenge the educational formation that has been in place in New Zealand since the millennium, and which itself was a response to the collapse of the consensus around education in the 1980s and 1990s. How can we make sense of these changes, and where might we be headed? Third way education The educational formation now on its way out was a product of the economic and cultural changes of the 1980s and 1990s. This was when New Zealand was shifting from a welfare society to a market society. The state didn't become less important, but it stressed competition and innovation. Schools were to be 'self-managing'. Education was less about the common good and more about individual achievement. These changes were reflected in both NCEA and the New Zealand Curriculum. There was a drive to constant improvement along with projects that came together under a progressive banner, such as 'achievement for all', which was made possible by an assessment system that took note of what students could do rather than what they knew. Classrooms became more open, teachers more 'open-necked' and teacher-student relations relaxed. The curriculum was built around skills rather than knowledge for its own sake. Overall levels of professionalism improved. New Zealand rose up the Programme for International Student Assessment charts. This small Pacific nation was punching above its weight in education, while also leading the way in renegotiating Treaty settlements. I call this 'third way' education. It was part of a wider political moment that saw that capitalism had evolved beyond both liberalism and socialism and was now a pragmatic mixture of state and market. Social identities were more fluid, traditions were challenged, and society was seen as diverse and open to change. Knowledge itself was changing, and schools were part of the learning society. It wasn't quite 'the end of history', but there was a sense that older political rivalries were being transcended. In education, the focus was on what worked to ensure that all achieved their potential. This educational formation cut across political parties and differences. For example, modern learning environments and the much vaunted 'communities of learning' were introduced by a National government. The strength of third way education was indicated by its ability to fight off the policy of National Standards during the John Key years. The election of the Labour government in 2017 represented the high-water mark. Under the title of a refresh, Labour proposed a new curriculum which sought to redefine the nation's story. Most significant was the introduction of the Aotearoa New Zealand histories curriculum, but there was also guidance on sexualities and relationships, which drew upon queer and transgender theory. The Ministry of Education actually paid teachers to attend professional learning and development courses which explored 'whiteness' and critical race theory. The enlightened values of the educated classes were being spread throughout the land. What went wrong? All this seems a long time ago. The third way education formation has been undermined by three forces. First, there was Covid. The fallout from the lockdowns is still being felt. Jacinda Ardern's government acted swiftly to secure the borders and isolate the population. The lockdowns were long, in part because NZ did not gain access to the vaccine. As time went on, the government was accused of authoritarianism and over-reach. The 'team of five million' story frayed. The 'laptop classes' – working from home and shopping online had a 'good' Covid, while others – linked to race and social class, keeping hospitals open and delivering takeaways – not so much. School attendance has not returned to pre-Covid levels and there are concerns about the effect of the lockdowns on mental health and wellbeing. Second, the economic situation creating anxiety about precarity and futures. The longevity of third way could be partly attributed to New Zealand recovering relatively quickly from the 2008 global financial crisis and spared austerity politics. Covid changed that, and the inflationary spiral that followed has eroded confidence and demanded fiscal constraint. Many of the changes to education are 'cost-saving' (in the short run at least). The 2024 OECD Economic Survey for New Zealand is a sobering read, and much of it devoted to how educational reform is central to improving productivity. Read it: it is the Government's playbook for education policy. Third, there is a palpable feeling that we are living in dangerous times. The rise of populism, Donald Trump returned to the White House, war in Ukraine and the ongoing crisis in Gaza, not to mention climate breakdown, all make a 'return of history' an appealing concept. Most of us went to school at a time when we could believe our teachers' insistence that the 'world is getting better'. That is not the case now; educators haven't worked out how to deal with that. These factors have prompted a National-NZ First-Act coalition government to move swiftly to change the direction of New Zealand education policy, including its recent announcement it will be scrapping NCEA in favour of a more exam-based model. The speed has almost certainly been related to the three-year electoral cycle. It has generated a backlash. There is a lot of talk of hurt and upset; some aspects of the education formation have become 'sacred'. Education Minister Erica Stanford's most lasting achievement may be to challenge some of these sacred beliefs. What next? The Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci gave us the concept of the interregnum – a time when society is at an 'in-between' stage where 'the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born'. This seems to describe the state of education in New Zealand. We need new ways to imagine the role of education – including what and how we teach, learn and evaluate, as well as the role of the teacher. Both 'sides' need to stop talking past each other and recycling old and dated ideas. We need to find ways to have an intelligent and honest conversation about the real aims and purposes of education.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Pointless foreshore debate a distraction from economic crisis
At the same time, our second biggest export market has just imposed 15% tariffs on our products – higher than on our direct competitors – and its rival for global hegemony is extending its influence and projecting its military power into our region and even our realm. Yet despite all this – or perhaps because of it – some within the coalition Government and fringe groups aligned to them think it's a good idea to have another argument about race. Maybe that's not surprising. With the working and middle classes crying out for an explanation for why things are so bad and the country's prospects so bleak, some within the old political and business establishments dare not admit it is because of poor policy and commercial decisions they themselves contributed to over recent decades. As in other nations facing seemingly irretrievable decline, it's much better to point to a minority and blame them. 'It's not your fault, or mine, that you're doing it tough,' this old elite tells those who are struggling. 'We're all just victims of the 'grievance economy' where Māori keep taking what is rightfully yours.' The worst thing is that it works, at least with perhaps 20% of voters. That rump, which polls suggest consists mainly of white baby-boomer men, is particularly important electorally to NZ First and Act, who fight over them. You may think that the biggest issues in this year's local government elections are out-of-control rates and councils' cumbersome and incompetent application of the Resource Management Act. But, according to Hobson's Pledge, 'the most important fight of 2025' is around Māori wards. 'Across the country,' it says in an apocalyptic fund-raising email, 'local councils have become the frontline in a slow, stealthy assault on democracy. Behind closed doors, race-based policies are being pushed through. Co-governance is being installed without consent. And representation is being carved up based not on merit or votes, but on ancestry.' Hobson's Pledge says it will 'go big with this campaign', including 'billboards, signage, social media, and engaging with new voices'. The campaign's integrity is already under question, after it was revealed that Hobson's Pledge used, without her permission, a photograph of an elderly Māori woman in a billboard implying she opposes Māori wards. Rotorua kuia Ellen Tamati is devastated after discovering her image is being used by a political lobby group that's pushing to abolish Māori wards. Photo / Aukaha News In fact, she supports them. She never agreed for anyone to use her image commercially, and the agency which sold it anyway was clear it could not be used in advertising. Hobson's Pledge has since asked the billboard company to remove the advertisement and said it would contact the woman to ensure she was okay and let her know her image was publicly available as a stock image. Hobson's Pledge has form with this sort of thing, setting up a 'We Belong Aotearoa' campaign before the last election, falsely suggesting a grassroots movement by immigrants concerned about co-governance. Next time, Hobson's Pledge ought to use one of its own supporters – of which it claims to have many – in its advertisements. It might also give greater attention to telling the truth, after its advertising about the foreshore and seabed in the New Zealand Herald was found by the Advertising Standards Board to be materially misleading. Hobson's Pledge will continue to do its thing, and its antics are probably best seen as another small price to pay for the benefits of free speech. More worrying is internal coalition politics pushing Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith to proceed with new foreshore and seabed legislation. This is certain to arouse all the passions of the Clark Government's 2003 and 2004 fiasco that the Key Government resolved so successfully in its first term by passing then-Attorney General Christopher Finlayson's Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011. The Luxon Government – or at least a powerful faction within it – seems to want a repeat of Act's failed Treaty Principles Bill, with all the associated division and distraction from the real economic crises. There might have been a case for the bill Goldsmith is fronting had the Supreme Court upheld a recent novel interpretation of Finlayson's legislation by the Court of Appeal. But the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal, making the proposed bill seem redundant. We must now choose whether Finlayson or Goldsmith is likely to be the better jurist. Finlayson says the Supreme Court left things as Parliament intended back in 2011 and that Goldsmith's bill would compromise existing Māori rights. Goldsmith says the Supreme Court made it too easy for Māori to have their rights recognised by the courts and that the bill is needed to return things to the status quo the Key Government established. Since the whole foreshore and seabed controversy emerged in 2003, it has been based on what Finlayson calls a 'lie': concerns about public access to beaches. Hobson's Pledge now goes so far as to claim there's a risk of 'kissing our entire coastline goodbye'. Yet beach access was never an issue, even when the Court of Appeal made its original 2003 ruling that kicked off the controversy. It certainly isn't an issue under the 2011 law or the Supreme Court's decisions. The rights that an iwi can have recognised over bits of the foreshore and seabed are highly limited, and nothing like ordinary property rights. Underlying all this is another lie: that there is something activist, radical or woke about the courts acknowledging Māori customary law. Yet in Africa, India, Southeast Asia, North America and New Zealand, the British Empire and its common law always acknowledged that customary law continued after colonisation, unless it was specifically repealed. The truly radical or activist judges have been those who historically tried to deny this. It can be annoying when other people's legal rights are upheld, like farmers being able to stop hikers from walking across their property. But that is no reason to deny such rights. To the contrary, it is an essential democratic principle that the specific legal rights of individuals and other minorities are upheld, whatever the majority may think. It's wrong to keep changing the law on the foreshore and seabed or anything else when it looks like the courts may uphold some specific legal rights that someone else might find annoying. If they can do it to an iwi, they can do it to you. And, with all New Zealand's economic and social crises, ask yourself whose interests are served by trying to turn your attention to race.
