(Speech by Chris Trotter to the New Zealand First Convention, Bureta Park Convention Centre, Tauranga on Saturday, 1
September 2001)
Thank you Doug for that kind introduction,
When I received Winston Peters’ invitation to speak to you today I immediately thought of my good friend and co-editor,
the late Bruce Jesson. NZ First fascinated Bruce – not least because it was the first explicitly patriotic party to be
formed in New Zealand since the creation of the National Party in 1936. Bruce devoted his life to promoting the ideal of
a truly independent New Zealand - a nation willing to cast off the constitutional, economic, and cultural shackles that
have so seriously impeded its growth for more than a century – and, for a while, he was convinced that NZ First shared
that ideal.
NZ First also fascinated Bruce because it was willing – at least in its early years - to champion the principles of what
might be called “National Capitalism”. I too was struck by this aspect of NZ First’s persona – especially after
receiving a 1993 article from Winston Peters in which the name Friedrich List figured prominently. List was a 19th
Century German economist who repudiated the free-trade philosophy of Adam Smith and advocated the protection of domestic
industry. That Winston Peters was willing to embrace an intellectual tradition so radically at odds with the
conventional economic and political wisdom of the governing elites was deeply impressive.
I must also confess to being deeply impressed by the way NZ First adapted itself to the new political realities of MMP.
This was not – I hasten to add – my initial reaction to NZ First’s decision to form a coalition with National. Like most
people on the Left, I was bitterly disappointed that an agreement with Labour and the Alliance had been rejected.
But, as the months passed I began to understand why Winston had done the deal with Jim Bolger. The National-NZ First
Coalition fatally weakened the forces of the New Right by decisively shifting the balance of political forces towards
the left – and they knew it. Had Winston Peters opted to form a coalition with Labour, the New Right would have been
given a whole new lease on life.
The detailed nature of the Coalition Agreement also guaranteed the rapid implementation of many of NZ First’s most
progressive policies. I don’t think that many New Zealanders – even now – understand what a huge achievement free
medical treatment for children under six was – and is.
The current difficulties of the Alliance – whose flagship policies have yet to be implemented - indicate just how
shrewdly Winston Peters’ judged the new political conditions under which all New Zealand politicians are now required to
operate.
I wish I could say that the leadership of the Left demonstrated as much shrewdness. Had Helen Clark wished, she could
have been New Zealand’s first woman Prime Minister in 1997. Hell may have no fury like a woman scorned; but equally,
Heaven is not built out of bad temper. Only belatedly, as Labour’s once warm relationship with the Greens has cooled,
has Helen Clark learned what Winston Peters appears to have known all along: that in politics – especially MMP politics
– never say never.
Why, then, has NZ First not been held up as a positive example of MMP in action? Why was the party which kept more of
its election promises than anyone since Norm Kirk and Rob Muldoon derided and disowned by everybody – from Joe Public to
the Press Gallery?
In part it was a matter of snobbery. NZ First had prevented the Labour Party from assuming office, and for that crime
against the chattering classes Winston Peters and his cohorts had to be punished. Winston had also affronted the
Wellington policy elite by inventing the position of Treasurer and then assuming its not inconsiderable powers himself.
The relationship between the chattering classes and the Wellington policy elite is a deep and mysterious one - which
only Colin James, Al Morrison, Jane Clifton, Linda Clark and Barry Soper truly understand. Suffice to say that it is
possible to be off-side with one or the other, at any one time, and survive; but to be off-side with both of them, all
the time, is almost always fatal.
Snobbery, alone, however, is an insufficient explanation for NZ First’s bitter experiences in and out of Government. To
answer the question: ‘What tore NZ First apart?’ we must descend to the lower levels of New Zealand’s social
architecture; to the place where all of the nation’s grubby little secrets are kept hidden away. It’s an answer that
everybody knows, but nobody cares to discuss: NZ First was torn apart by racial hostility.
Tuku Morgan was the first to feel the blistering heat of public scorn – unleashed, and it is important to remember this,
by elements of his own Tainui tribe. Of course the Labour Party – that bastion of racial sensitivity - seized upon the
revelations of Morgan’s political enemies to discredit all the new occupants of the Maori seats, but this should not
blind us to the fact that what drove the scandal forward was a deep – and widening - rift within Maoridom itself.
To understand that rift we should turn to the latest work of Alan Webster, former Associate Professor of Education and
Human Development at Massey University, and for many years one of the key co-ordinators and analysts of the New Zealand
Study of Values. In his latest book, Spiral of Values Webster writes:
“The dream of social and political scientists is to be able to predict events. The WVS [World Value Study] studies could
possibly have helped predict the outcome of the troubled 1999 Seattle World Trade Organisation meeting, just as the NZSV
predicted months ahead the outcome of the 1999 national election in New Zealand. The NZSV can now predict a difficult
time as New Zealand struggles to ameliorate the alienation of ethnic minorities in New Zealand – alienation in the Maori
case both in real terms as in ‘we were robbed’ and in spiritual terms as in ‘we are strangers within our own land’.”
Why is Webster so pessimistic? The answer lies in his breakdown of the NZSV statistics.
Some of the Survey’s most revealing data emerged from a question designed to elicit information on ethnic identity. The
first part of the question asked: “Which one of the following best describes you?” Respondents were then asked to tick
one of the following statements: “Above all, I am a Maori”; “Above all, I am a Pakeha”; “Above all, I am a European”;
“Above all, I am a Pacific Islander”; “Above all, I am an Asian”; and “Above all, I am a New Zealander first, and a
member of some ethnic group second”.
The results were fascinating. Only half of those identifying themselves as Maori ticked the “Above all, I am a Maori”
box. The other half ticked “Above all, I am a New Zealander first, and a member of some ethnic group second.”
Further analysis of the Survey results indicated that those identifying themselves primarily as Maori – referred to by
Webster as “Maori-Maori” - generated a highly distinctive cluster of social and political values.
According to Webster: “In the arena of public values, Maori-Maori do display marked questioning of the principle of
democracy as a system of government, tending to regard it as deficient in economic management, providing order in
society and being indecisive.”
The contrast with the other half of Maoridom is startling, while only 49% of “Maori-Maori” agreed that “Democracy is the
best form of government”, the figure for “Maori New Zealanders” was 67%. Even more worrying, perhaps, is the finding
that while 34% of the total sample of respondents agreed that “parents must earn the respect of their children”, the
figure for “Maori-Maori” was just 16%.
On the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi, the divergence between the world view of Maori-Maori and the rest of the New
Zealand population was even more marked. Of the total sample of respondents only 5% agreed that the Treaty of Waitangi
should be strengthened - compared to 41% of “Maori-Maori”. Predictably, only 1% of “Maori-Maori” thought the Treaty
should be abolished – as compared to 33% of the total sample.
Another sobering statistic to emerge from the Survey measured the level of support for revolutionary change. Taken as a
whole, only 4% of respondents agreed that “our society must be radically changed by revolutionary action”. The
corresponding figure for “Maori-Maori” was 13% - more than three times higher.
The New Zealand Survey of Values, and Alan Webster’s analysis of its findings, casts the recent political history of NZ
First in a new and highly revealing light. Clearly Winston Peters and Ron Mark identified themselves as New Zealanders
first and foremost, while the so-called “Tight Five” saw themselves as being - above all - Maori. With fewer than half
of Maori nationalists convinced that democracy is the best form of government, perhaps the extraordinary events of
1998-99 have finally found their explanation.
The fact that only 5% of New Zealanders favour a strengthening of the Treaty of Waitangi is hardly an excuse for Maori
nationalist celebration. The New Zealand Survey of Values has reported about the same number of New Zealanders in favour
of socialism for many years – and yet, to date, the socialist revolution has stubbornly failed to materialise. On the
other hand, only a minority of New Zealanders supported the Treasury-inspired “reforms” of 1984-96, but that did not
cause Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson to throw in the towel.
Revolutionary change is often the work of minorities. If the fate of King Charles I had been put to a democratic vote he
would have died with his head still firmly attached to his shoulders. Lenin’s Bolsheviks were a distinct minority within
the Russian Constituent Assembly, but that did not prevent them from seizing control of their country by armed force.
This, I believe, is what lies behind Alan Webster’s cautionary language. As he expresses it:
“Destabilisation will be most conspicuous when the heart of the culture – in our case belief in democracy – is seriously
disregarded. Such is not yet the case in New Zealand, but there are disquieting signals. Within the New Zealand data,
poorer ethnic groups and to an extent those who seek support from authoritarian belief systems seem more likely to doubt
the virtue of democracy. This is reflected in the varying cultural views of the superiority of a democratic system of
government. Those most likely to agree or agree strongly that democracy is better were those who called themselves ‘New
Zealanders’ at 79%, with ‘Europeans’ at 70%, and ‘Pakeha’ 65%. In some contrast were Pacific Islander 59% and Maori 48%.
Views varied as to the effectiveness of a democratic system, its organisational competency, its ability to maintain
order, and its decision-making ability. Democratic child-rearing perspectives and approaches to family and moral
questions are likewise often at odds across ethnic cultures. A clear warning is posted immediately: the Polynesian
sector (including Maori) which will numerically dominate the country within five decades, is approaching half
unsympathetic with democracy. The values-cultures are the mindsets from which major social events arise. Let one
significant change in the level of satisfaction or relative power arise, and the dynamics must take a sharp swing.”
Is New Zealand’s future to be glimpsed in Fiji’s present? Is it our destiny to squander the manifold blessings of these
islands in a sordid struggle for racial supremacy? Must we continue, as New Zealand novelist, Philip Temple, put it in a
recent article for N.Z. Political Review: “to tell our stories, perform our haka and then wrestle with each other at the
bottom of a rich man’s garden, while his guests drink cocktails and stare at us with amusement through the conservatory
windows”?
If we continue to shy away from the problem, I strongly suspect that Temple’s vision will indeed be our fate. Listen to
these words – taken from an article by the Maori nationalist supporter, Joe Davies, and posted on tino rangatiratanga
page of the ARENA website:
“The Treaty of Waitangi is today the only legal basis for the presence of non-Maori settlers here in Aotearoa/NZ. Maori
never gave up their rights (as the Crown claims), nor were they ever conquered, despite several attempts. If we take
away the Treaty, the legal right of non-Maori people to live in this country is removed with it. The Treaty of Waitangi
is actually about Pakeha rights, not Maori rights. And those rights do not include the right to rule Maori people or
Maori land.”
Davies’ casual disenfranchisement of 86% of the New Zealand population is merely the logical end-point of the Maori
nationalist insistence that the Treaty of Waitangi be honoured in full. And it would be foolish to suppose that it does
not find a sympathetic audience among Wellington policy-makers. As Colin James notes in Left Turn, a collection of
essays on the 1999 election: “The Treaty of Waitangi process since 1985 has been sustained by a consensus of the
Wellington political and bureaucratic elite. This has ensured the failure of a ‘redneck’ backlash.”
To most of us “The Crown” is the symbol of New Zealand’s elected government, which is, in turn, representative of the
New Zealand people’s will. But to the Wellington policy elite and Maori Treaty claimants, “The Crown” is something
altogether different. For them, it stands for the Executive Power of the State, the Bureaucratic Machine, the Permanent
Political and Economic Establishment: and you and I, as citizens, are not included within its ambit. Indeed, it is vital
that the citizenry, and their parliamentary representatives, remain excluded from the Treaty settlement process – lest
by democratic deliberation the “rednecks” determine a radically different approach to settling the historical grievances
of Maori New Zealanders.
If you doubt what I am saying, then consider these words from a former Governor-General of New Zealand, Sir Paul Reeves:
“I have never been attracted by the invitation to substitute citizenship for ethnicity. So in terms of Alan Webster’s
categorisation I am one of those ethnic Maori who identify as ‘above all’, a Maori’ rather than ‘above all a New
Zealander’”. These are worrying sentiments to find in the mouth of the person formerly mandated with the constitutional
guardianship of the rights of all New Zealand citizens.
NZ First, in its determination to re-ignite the fires of electoral support, might wish to give some serious
consideration to taking up the cause of constitutional reform. New Zealanders, in my view, are in urgent need of
decisive leadership on this issue - and NZ First is better placed than most to lead a nationwide campaign for a
democratically elected Constitutional Convention, dedicated to renovating New Zealand’s political architecture and
forging a new relationship between Maori and Pakeha.
Basing our future prospects as a nation on a 160-year-old document drawn up by an English naval officer, and assented to
by a handful of Maori aristocrats, does not strike me as a rock-solid formula for success in the 21st Century. A better
alternative might be to build our future upon the acute insight of Kiwi historian, James Belich, who argues in his book
Making Peoples, that Maori and Pakeha, together, “helped each other invent their substantive identities”. We
fair-skinned Polynesians are not – and never will be – “Europeans”. Just as contemporary Maori are not – and can never
be again – the Maori who inhabited these islands before colonisation. Both of us are the victims of historical forces
too vast for blame, too permanent for guilt.
Like it or not, both of us are here to stay, and if we are to live together in anything approaching harmony, we must
learn to define ourselves in a way that makes a civilized future possible. That was Bruce Jesson’s dream, it is my hope,
and it is, I would suggest, NZ First’s opportunity.
And it may be a lot easier than you think. Alan Webster and the New Zealand Study of Values suggest that close to half
of us – Maori and Pakeha – have already settled upon a working definition – a formula which, while acknowledging ethnic
difference, advances with pride our common national identity.
Above all, we are New Zealanders first.
- ENDS -