Chris Luxon's speech at Waitangi this year about the three articles of the Treaty echoed David Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill closely. Seymour noted the similarities in his press stand-up later and said he had listened to the Prime Minister’s speech and “his idea of the three principles is the same as the Treaty Principles Bill”.
Oddly, the mainstream media ignored Luxon's speech — perhaps because they didn't want to draw attention to it or perhaps because they didn't understand the significance of what he was saying.
It seems that Luxon doesn't object to the TPB per se, but doesn't want to buy a fight with the media and Maori activists by making it law or having it go to a referendum.
It looks like political cowardice rather than a philosophical objection.
I had the same reaction on hearing Luxon’s speech - very much at odds with his earlier comment that there’s ‘nothing he likes’ about the TPB. It’s consistent though with polling showing agreement with each of the TPB’s principles individually but not with the bill as a whole. There also seemed to be remarkably little vocal opposition to his speech from iwi leaders at Waitangi.
I think David Seymour is our most intelligent and principled politician, and the one most important to our country’s future. That’s why I’m an ACT member. But there’s a section of the population who will oppose anything he does just because it’s him doing it. Not unlike the reflexive condemnation of anything Donald Trump does. But I think that David is principled enough to be more concerned about eventually getting the right policy through than about getting the credit for it.
So we do need National to run with this, and it could turn their fortunes around. What I think prevents that currently is a combination of lack of conviction in leadership, a pathological desire to be popular, and a view that I suspect is common among some National MPs exemplified by Nicola Willis’ comment that only people over 50 are worried by cogovernance.
Sitting on the fence just gives you splinters in the bum.
Hi Doug. I can't really fathom what intention Luxon had in making the speech at Waitangi because in his media stand-up later he obviously didn't want to talk about the TPB. In fact, he closed down journalists' questions quickly by saying National had "killed" the bill and indicated he wanted to move on from that topic asap.
And he hasn't followed up with any other statements that might indicate a shift in his position.
The speech was later passed off by commentators as a "history lesson we didn't need". I suspect an awful lot of journalists don't know much about the Treaty articles but simply react hostilely to anything Seymour proposes as
an "attack on Maori" or some such. So they probably had no idea that Luxon was actually agreeing with Seymour.
I also think Luxon fears being crucified by the media over opposing Maorification more strongly — and that fear is justified because a) he certainly would be, and b) he knows he won't be able to defend taking a stronger position. I don't think he understands the debate at all and so is poorly equipped to handle it.
And, as you say, his senior ministers, including Nicola Willis, don't see how important the issue is to a lot of National voters either.
I had the same reaction on hearing Luxon’s speech - very much at odds with his earlier comment that there’s ‘nothing he likes’ about the TPB. It’s consistent though with polling showing agreement with each of the TPB’s principles individually but not with the bill as a whole. There also seemed to be remarkably little vocal opposition to his speech from iwi leaders at Waitangi.
I think David Seymour is our most intelligent and principled politician, and the one most important to our country’s future. That’s why I’m an ACT member. But there’s a section of the population who will oppose anything he does just because it’s him doing it. Not unlike the reflexive condemnation of anything Donald Trump does. But I think that David is principled enough to be more concerned about eventually getting the right policy through than about getting the credit for it.
So we do need National to run with this, and it could turn their fortunes around. What I think prevents that currently is a combination of lack of conviction in leadership, a pathological desire to be popular, and a view that I suspect is common among some National MPs exemplified by Nicola Willis’ comment that only people over 50 are worried by cogovernance.
Sitting on the fence just gives you splinters in the bum.
Graham, the Waitangi speech silence is the more revealing data point of the two.
If the media missed it, that's a competence failure. If they understood it and chose not to amplify it, that's a framing decision serving a specific interest. Either way the effect is identical: the public doesn't know that Luxon's stated position and the Treaty Principles Bill are, by Seymour's own account, substantively the same.
Your instinct is right — but I'd refine cowardice slightly. Cowardice implies he knows the right thing and flinches. What the polling suggests is something more calculated: he has assessed the institutional cost of leading on this issue against a demographic whose reach inside the media, the public service, and local government exceeds their raw vote share. He's not flinching... he's discounting - resulting in public mistrust.
The question is whether the calculation is even correct. The coalition is within 1.5 points eight months from an election. The silent majority on this issue may be considerably larger than the managed consensus assumes.
Gary, you make some interesting points so I've referred your piece to the member of my team who has had much to say on this subject... so here is his comment on the matter:
Watching this from Australia and the pattern you're describing is depressingly familiar over here too.
We've had our own version of the Luxon manoeuvre — leaders who privately agree with a position, publicly signal sympathy when the numbers demand it, and then go missing the moment the media temperature rises. It's not ideological. It's actuarial. They've calculated that the cost of leading exceeds the cost of waiting, and they'll keep calculating that right up until the waiting costs more than the leading. Which it eventually does, usually at election time and usually messily.
The Bill English quote is the key thing here. "One standard of citizenship for all" is not a complicated proposition. It doesn't require a QC to defend it. It requires a Prime Minister with enough self-respect to say it out loud and mean it on a Tuesday in March, not just at campaign rallies in 2023. The fact that English said it clearly in 2003, won government in 2008, and then spent nine years finding reasons not to act on it tells you everything about how the managed silence works. The words aren't the commitment. The silence after the words is where you find out what the commitment actually is.
Graham Adams' observation in the comments about Luxon's Waitangi speech is worth sitting with. If Luxon is privately aligned with the Treaty Principles Bill but publicly declining to say so because he doesn't want the fight — that's not pragmatism. That's the managed class doing what the managed class does: reaching the right conclusion through the analytical function and then suppressing the output because the institutional cost of saying it out loud is assessed as too high.
The Irish had a word for that kind of leadership. We don't need to print it here.
For anyone interested in the structural reasons why this pattern repeats across Westminster democracies — not just in NZ, not just on Treaty issues — we are a small analytical channel called The Captain J Channel on Substack working through exactly this territory. The framework we are using — UIS-21 — gives a name to the mechanism Gary is describing. Worth a look if this kind of thing keeps you up at night. It keeps me up, and I'm just a builder from Sydney who watches rugby and pays taxes.
Thanks Liz, you are most welcome! I'm seeking to build an intelligent audience that appreciates a diverse set of opinions from writers that don't swim in the mainstream.
The recent Roy Morgan polling was instructive in that it indicated major support for the left leaning parties came from the female 18 to 50 demographic. It intersects with this cohort now in positions of authority within the media, academia, councils, and government departments.
I suspect this cohort is also the reason why Luxon is running scared of his own shadow. While on the subject of demographics... we now have a generation or two that barely has sufficient focus to tie their own shoelaces let alone understand the significance of the cultural maorification they have been indoctrinated with.
There is a call for a 4 year electoral term. We are living through the carnage from the last administration's three years, and have the living example of a 5 year electoral term in the UK to be able to make a solid judgement on advisability for extension.
Unfortunately critical thinking and common sense have become quaint artefacts that are dying out with our older generations. We are seeing in real time the impact of the alternatives that take their place. My team is covering this as it happens.
The Air New Zealand coverage this week is another clean example of what we've been describing. The media is running a sustained comparison between Air New Zealand cutting 1,100 flights and Jetstar cutting none — without once explaining that Jetstar doesn't fly Gisborne, Marlborough, Timaru or Tauranga. It never has. The comparison is structurally false, and the false comparison does quiet political work without anyone needing to instruct it.
That's Domain V of our signal tracker firing in real time. Not yet a full confirmation — but a pre-signal that belongs in the monitoring record. The piece is on the channel this week.
That female demographic group is indeed woke. Interestingly that’s a similar group (18-35 female I think) largely responsible for electing a Hamas supporting Mayor in NYC. Who’d ever have believed that would happen, but that group has no understanding of reality & votes mostly on feelings.
You are absolutely correct Gary. The trouble with polls is that the question shapes the answer. Luxon’s myopic view that the only issue that voters care about is the economy is potentially his and Nationals downfall particularly now with the economy under threat from oil blockades.
All of this maorification of everything is so out of control and corruption is rife. Nz will not recover from tribal lore which is exactly where luxon is placing us.
For some reason Luxon doesn't want to say anything to get offside with Maori. Surely he doesn't think this will mean more votes for him. There would have to be a lot more voting against him for his lack of courage than voting for him. He pretends the government is in partnership with Maori because he's afraid to be straight up and say it is definitely not. Even with all the evidence that the Maori seats are a farce he can't bring himself to say it. We need a leader with the guts to say what needs to be said and ignore any backlash, which may not be very much anyway. Luxon is a weak pussy. Another farce is the Treaty Principles, invented to allow Maori anything they want. The 3 Articles are all that should matter and are very simple and straightforward. The interpretations taken from them are absolute nonsense.and should be scrapped. When the Treaty was signed there's no way the signatories had any of these farfetched Principles in mind. To say they would have is preposterous and ridiculous.
I'm not sure where National are getting their advice from, but it most certainly can't be out and about amongst the people. The country is crying out for the leaders of the main parties to pick a stance on the important issues. Hipkins blows along with the winds of ideology and as the years pass it seems National have increasing become lukewarm also. There's no future for our country with these two as they are. I'll be giving my vote to NZFIRST.
Chris Luxon's speech at Waitangi this year about the three articles of the Treaty echoed David Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill closely. Seymour noted the similarities in his press stand-up later and said he had listened to the Prime Minister’s speech and “his idea of the three principles is the same as the Treaty Principles Bill”.
Oddly, the mainstream media ignored Luxon's speech — perhaps because they didn't want to draw attention to it or perhaps because they didn't understand the significance of what he was saying.
It seems that Luxon doesn't object to the TPB per se, but doesn't want to buy a fight with the media and Maori activists by making it law or having it go to a referendum.
It looks like political cowardice rather than a philosophical objection.
Thanks, Graham. That's very interesting. Heartening and disheartening at the same time.
Hi Gary and Graham, and I hope you’re both well.
I had the same reaction on hearing Luxon’s speech - very much at odds with his earlier comment that there’s ‘nothing he likes’ about the TPB. It’s consistent though with polling showing agreement with each of the TPB’s principles individually but not with the bill as a whole. There also seemed to be remarkably little vocal opposition to his speech from iwi leaders at Waitangi.
I think David Seymour is our most intelligent and principled politician, and the one most important to our country’s future. That’s why I’m an ACT member. But there’s a section of the population who will oppose anything he does just because it’s him doing it. Not unlike the reflexive condemnation of anything Donald Trump does. But I think that David is principled enough to be more concerned about eventually getting the right policy through than about getting the credit for it.
So we do need National to run with this, and it could turn their fortunes around. What I think prevents that currently is a combination of lack of conviction in leadership, a pathological desire to be popular, and a view that I suspect is common among some National MPs exemplified by Nicola Willis’ comment that only people over 50 are worried by cogovernance.
Sitting on the fence just gives you splinters in the bum.
Hi Doug. I can't really fathom what intention Luxon had in making the speech at Waitangi because in his media stand-up later he obviously didn't want to talk about the TPB. In fact, he closed down journalists' questions quickly by saying National had "killed" the bill and indicated he wanted to move on from that topic asap.
And he hasn't followed up with any other statements that might indicate a shift in his position.
The speech was later passed off by commentators as a "history lesson we didn't need". I suspect an awful lot of journalists don't know much about the Treaty articles but simply react hostilely to anything Seymour proposes as
an "attack on Maori" or some such. So they probably had no idea that Luxon was actually agreeing with Seymour.
I also think Luxon fears being crucified by the media over opposing Maorification more strongly — and that fear is justified because a) he certainly would be, and b) he knows he won't be able to defend taking a stronger position. I don't think he understands the debate at all and so is poorly equipped to handle it.
And, as you say, his senior ministers, including Nicola Willis, don't see how important the issue is to a lot of National voters either.
Hi Gary and Graham, and I hope you’re both well.
I had the same reaction on hearing Luxon’s speech - very much at odds with his earlier comment that there’s ‘nothing he likes’ about the TPB. It’s consistent though with polling showing agreement with each of the TPB’s principles individually but not with the bill as a whole. There also seemed to be remarkably little vocal opposition to his speech from iwi leaders at Waitangi.
I think David Seymour is our most intelligent and principled politician, and the one most important to our country’s future. That’s why I’m an ACT member. But there’s a section of the population who will oppose anything he does just because it’s him doing it. Not unlike the reflexive condemnation of anything Donald Trump does. But I think that David is principled enough to be more concerned about eventually getting the right policy through than about getting the credit for it.
So we do need National to run with this, and it could turn their fortunes around. What I think prevents that currently is a combination of lack of conviction in leadership, a pathological desire to be popular, and a view that I suspect is common among some National MPs exemplified by Nicola Willis’ comment that only people over 50 are worried by cogovernance.
Sitting on the fence just gives you splinters in the bum.
Graham, the Waitangi speech silence is the more revealing data point of the two.
If the media missed it, that's a competence failure. If they understood it and chose not to amplify it, that's a framing decision serving a specific interest. Either way the effect is identical: the public doesn't know that Luxon's stated position and the Treaty Principles Bill are, by Seymour's own account, substantively the same.
Your instinct is right — but I'd refine cowardice slightly. Cowardice implies he knows the right thing and flinches. What the polling suggests is something more calculated: he has assessed the institutional cost of leading on this issue against a demographic whose reach inside the media, the public service, and local government exceeds their raw vote share. He's not flinching... he's discounting - resulting in public mistrust.
The question is whether the calculation is even correct. The coalition is within 1.5 points eight months from an election. The silent majority on this issue may be considerably larger than the managed consensus assumes.
Captain J
(The Captain J Channel — Substack)
The National Party is a gutless embarrassment!
Gary, you make some interesting points so I've referred your piece to the member of my team who has had much to say on this subject... so here is his comment on the matter:
Watching this from Australia and the pattern you're describing is depressingly familiar over here too.
We've had our own version of the Luxon manoeuvre — leaders who privately agree with a position, publicly signal sympathy when the numbers demand it, and then go missing the moment the media temperature rises. It's not ideological. It's actuarial. They've calculated that the cost of leading exceeds the cost of waiting, and they'll keep calculating that right up until the waiting costs more than the leading. Which it eventually does, usually at election time and usually messily.
The Bill English quote is the key thing here. "One standard of citizenship for all" is not a complicated proposition. It doesn't require a QC to defend it. It requires a Prime Minister with enough self-respect to say it out loud and mean it on a Tuesday in March, not just at campaign rallies in 2023. The fact that English said it clearly in 2003, won government in 2008, and then spent nine years finding reasons not to act on it tells you everything about how the managed silence works. The words aren't the commitment. The silence after the words is where you find out what the commitment actually is.
Graham Adams' observation in the comments about Luxon's Waitangi speech is worth sitting with. If Luxon is privately aligned with the Treaty Principles Bill but publicly declining to say so because he doesn't want the fight — that's not pragmatism. That's the managed class doing what the managed class does: reaching the right conclusion through the analytical function and then suppressing the output because the institutional cost of saying it out loud is assessed as too high.
The Irish had a word for that kind of leadership. We don't need to print it here.
For anyone interested in the structural reasons why this pattern repeats across Westminster democracies — not just in NZ, not just on Treaty issues — we are a small analytical channel called The Captain J Channel on Substack working through exactly this territory. The framework we are using — UIS-21 — gives a name to the mechanism Gary is describing. Worth a look if this kind of thing keeps you up at night. It keeps me up, and I'm just a builder from Sydney who watches rugby and pays taxes.
Ocker Joe
(The Captain J Channel — Substack)
Thanks for this lead, the new Substack looks fascinating. Subscribed.
Thanks Liz, you are most welcome! I'm seeking to build an intelligent audience that appreciates a diverse set of opinions from writers that don't swim in the mainstream.
Cheers
CJ.
The recent Roy Morgan polling was instructive in that it indicated major support for the left leaning parties came from the female 18 to 50 demographic. It intersects with this cohort now in positions of authority within the media, academia, councils, and government departments.
I suspect this cohort is also the reason why Luxon is running scared of his own shadow. While on the subject of demographics... we now have a generation or two that barely has sufficient focus to tie their own shoelaces let alone understand the significance of the cultural maorification they have been indoctrinated with.
There is a call for a 4 year electoral term. We are living through the carnage from the last administration's three years, and have the living example of a 5 year electoral term in the UK to be able to make a solid judgement on advisability for extension.
Unfortunately critical thinking and common sense have become quaint artefacts that are dying out with our older generations. We are seeing in real time the impact of the alternatives that take their place. My team is covering this as it happens.
The Air New Zealand coverage this week is another clean example of what we've been describing. The media is running a sustained comparison between Air New Zealand cutting 1,100 flights and Jetstar cutting none — without once explaining that Jetstar doesn't fly Gisborne, Marlborough, Timaru or Tauranga. It never has. The comparison is structurally false, and the false comparison does quiet political work without anyone needing to instruct it.
That's Domain V of our signal tracker firing in real time. Not yet a full confirmation — but a pre-signal that belongs in the monitoring record. The piece is on the channel this week.
Captain J
(The Captain J Channel — Substack)
That female demographic group is indeed woke. Interestingly that’s a similar group (18-35 female I think) largely responsible for electing a Hamas supporting Mayor in NYC. Who’d ever have believed that would happen, but that group has no understanding of reality & votes mostly on feelings.
You are absolutely correct Gary. The trouble with polls is that the question shapes the answer. Luxon’s myopic view that the only issue that voters care about is the economy is potentially his and Nationals downfall particularly now with the economy under threat from oil blockades.
All of this maorification of everything is so out of control and corruption is rife. Nz will not recover from tribal lore which is exactly where luxon is placing us.
I sincerely hope you're wrong Lee, but perhaps that's because I'm a bit of an eternal optimist....
I hope im wrong as well
For some reason Luxon doesn't want to say anything to get offside with Maori. Surely he doesn't think this will mean more votes for him. There would have to be a lot more voting against him for his lack of courage than voting for him. He pretends the government is in partnership with Maori because he's afraid to be straight up and say it is definitely not. Even with all the evidence that the Maori seats are a farce he can't bring himself to say it. We need a leader with the guts to say what needs to be said and ignore any backlash, which may not be very much anyway. Luxon is a weak pussy. Another farce is the Treaty Principles, invented to allow Maori anything they want. The 3 Articles are all that should matter and are very simple and straightforward. The interpretations taken from them are absolute nonsense.and should be scrapped. When the Treaty was signed there's no way the signatories had any of these farfetched Principles in mind. To say they would have is preposterous and ridiculous.
Don't hold your breath while Luxon is in charge, Gary!
I'm not sure where National are getting their advice from, but it most certainly can't be out and about amongst the people. The country is crying out for the leaders of the main parties to pick a stance on the important issues. Hipkins blows along with the winds of ideology and as the years pass it seems National have increasing become lukewarm also. There's no future for our country with these two as they are. I'll be giving my vote to NZFIRST.