Hit The Road Jack

The Jester with no plan to return to its box.

Hit the road Jack and don't you come back
No more, no more, no more, no more
Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more
What you say?

Songwriters: Percy Mayfield

---

Morena,

I keep many of my posts, like this one, paywall-free so that everyone can read them.

However, please consider supporting me as a paid subscriber if you can afford to do so. Your support enables me to write full-time and bring Nick’s Kōrero to you.

Thanks so much to my existing subscribers. I very much appreciate the difference you’ve made in my life, and I also love it when you let me know that I’ve brought some goodness into yours. 🙂

Ngā mihi,
Nick

---

A jack-in-a-box provides a short-term thrill. We all know what’s coming, yet there is still an aspect of shock when Jack bursts forth. Children delight in it and ask to do it again and again.

The adults in the room laugh nervously, suggesting it might be time to put Jack back in his box and retire that toy for a while. Perhaps a decade or two before another generation opens the box and gasps in fright as it springs into life again. A short-term amusement, best enjoyed in small doses.

Image: BeFunky.

My concern was never over the Treaty Principles Bill being passed. It was of Seymour opening the jack in a box of ignorance and then refusing to put his toys away again afterwards.

Fears of perceived advantage fuelled by people who ought to know better. Revving up anger over steps to address inequality or even the most fundamental things, like, I don’t know… honouring a legal treaty.

The sprung Jack delights in his disruption and fully intends to become a permanent fixture on our political landscape.

I’m sure Seymour knows his Orwell and the value of a forever war to focus the population. That seems to have been his plan from the beginning.

Opposition to Three Waters, Co-Governance, Nanaia Mahuta, or respecting the intent of the Treaty. Promoting false narratives that are repeated until people accept them at face value without stopping to question whether Māori actually hold a privileged position in this country or whether that is, in fact, laughable.

Unfortunately, the way the Herald and One News are reporting on the Bill at present seems to encourage this. They are furthering the myth that this is an important debate for our nation and not merely dog-whistle politics on behalf of the ACT party, with the goal of building support based on fear and lies.

Let’s start with our old friends, the NZ Herald; surely they wouldn’t simply roll over and align their editorial positions favourably with the ACT party's. Would they? I posted this yesterday afternoon:

It's quite an odd article; it's labelled as an editorial, but it just seems like a reproduction of the two positions. As we have seen far too much throughout this discussion, equal weight is given to David Seymour's view and all the other ones put together.

It begins by saying that thousands of people have made submissions to the Justice Select Committee over the Treaty Principles Bill and then makes light of it by saying the following as if this was simply a difference of opinion over two equally valid positions:

“Some agree, some disagree. The issue has been discussed and debated around water coolers, coffee machines, and dinner tables since it was first mooted last year.”

So that’s nice, isn’t it?

Some of us agree, and some of us disagree. We can have a good old chat around the country's fabled water coolers, just as if we were discussing whether the Rugby Team or the Cricket Team will win in the Black Clash in Christchurch this Saturday.

In fairness, the article does mention the outrage over the sneaky way the bill was introduced. The First Reading pushed through to precede the arrival of the hikoi, and the PM so conveniently out of the country.

On top of that, there was the submission process over the Christmas period alongside a number of other bills, which were also dire and required submissions to be made while many were on holiday and not engaged in politics. The article dryly states, “It’s safe to say the timing was not ideal.”

It then lays out what Seymour is doing and says, “It sounds simple, but to use a well-worn term from the previous Labour Government, it’s a bit more ‘complex’.” A massive understatement, although it is correct that the bill is certainly not what it appears and is being sold as. And also a completely unnecessary dig at the Labour Party for calling complicated things complex. C’mon guys, can’t we just pretend everything is nice and simple and black and white, like David?

The editorial states that critics oppose the bill because they believe it undermines Māori rights. However, it counters this by promoting Seymour’s view that “the current principles have distorted the original intent of the Treaty and created different rights for some New Zealanders, resulting in Māori having different political and legal rights and privileges compared with non-Māori.”

No attempt is made to examine Seymour’s claims that Māori have different political rights or receive privileges than we poor, downtrodden Pakeha miss out on. It is presented as one side of the argument, despite the fact that the other side is the collective work of a whole series of highly informed experts, and this one is just Dave’s reckons.

The article concludes with some commentary on the record number of submissions received, three times the previous high, which was for the Conversion Therapy Bill. It then states, “So there’s a lot of interest shown by New Zealanders, and some would say this is democracy in action.”

The Herald’s editorial position, the way they are framing the issue, is that this is something Kiwis want and a healthy democratic process, more or less advocating for a referendum or, at the very least, suggesting this is normal.

My friend David had the following to say, “No, it's not. What utter bollocks. Just more and more shills for the Atlas group and Coalition. What absolute tosh. Democracy would be not letting an 8% party run the country and run amok with legislation we don't need.”

Then One News had a go at another ACT bill after they’d covered the diving Kiwi dollar, at its lowest point in two years, and the resulting rise in the price of oil and other imported products. Curiously, Simeon Brown was not shown whining about the money in motorists' pockets; I guess that isn’t a problem any more, not now that we’re “Back On Track” with National.

The news item discussed the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) and the fact that it makes no provision for the Treaty of Waitangi. Emeritus Law Professor and the smartest person in any given room, Jane Kelsey, explained that the bill was not new and had been put before Parliament and rejected three times previously.

Bryce Wilkinson spoke in favour of the legislation. One News referred to him as an “Economist” and failed to mention that he is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. In case you’re unfamiliar with that pleasant-sounding organisation, it’s a neoliberal think tank and a member of the ATLAS Network. Bryce also appears on the Platform and the now-defunct Reality Rain-Check Radio.

I find it incredibly dishonest to nominate someone from a quite extreme lobbying group that represents the interests of the wealthiest and simply tell the public that they are an “Economist.” What next? An article on media standards from industry expert Sean Plunket?

The newsreader explained that the legislation's principles failed to mention the treaty and completely ignored the environment.

As Professor Kelsey said of the RSB, “It sets a series of principles that are very ACT/Libertarian principles, and whilst we’ve been focussed on the Treaty Principles Bill as re-writing how the Crown approaches its treaty obligations, this renders te Tiriti effectively invisible.”

Bizarrely, Wilkinson said, “I can’t see any reason for thinking that legislators would not take the treaty into account at all; it makes no sense, why wouldn’t they take it into account. There’s nothing in the bill that stops them from taking it into account.”

Earth to Bryce: The reason is you, the NZ Initiative, the ATLAS Network, the ACT Party, and, most importantly, David Seymour.

Because nobody in their right mind would sit back comfortably thinking that someone like that would ensure the Treaty was considered properly as a matter of course. I’m sorry. Are you naive or lying, or have you lived under a rock for the last year? During which time, it has become painfully obvious that Seymour wants the Treaty gone, and both of these bills are steps in that direction.

We were then treated to some absolute horse shit from the man himself who told One News that had the policy existed in colonial days, many grievances from Māori mightn’t be with us.

It made no sense at all, and I don’t see why our state broadcaster should just repeat anything that comes out of his mouth when so much of it seems misleading, to put it generously. Is that the business One News is in? Misleading the public?

Regulation Minister David Seymour said the bill's purpose was to increase transparency in lawmaking. (Source: 1News)

Kelsey spelt it out clearly: “This is systemic. It will change the basis for law-making in the indefinite future to privilege those who are wealthy and powerful.”

Following the broadcast, David Seymour was typically thin-skinned. As is his fashion, he launched into criticising someone who is an absolute expert at something he seems to know bugger all about, just like he used to with Jacinda.

Gordon Gecko here, with his mantra of “wealth is good”, is so far out of his depth. I’m sorry, pal; I don’t care if you managed to trick a bunch of rednecks into joining your core 1% base to gain 8% of the vote and then somehow tricked old Numb Nuts Luxon into turning that into a majority - but this is Jane Kelsey pal.

I’m sure law students at Auckland Uni have been very grateful to have Professor Kelsey. On the other hand, I imagine Seymour’s activities over the last year have provided plenty for law students to talk about. Especially those students who believe the property rights he speaks of should also apply to Māori.

Prof. Jane Kelsey. Image: Auckland University,

The direction in which both of these bills take our country is disturbing, as is the fact that ACT will continue to pursue them even if they fail this time. It's also worrying that our Prime Minister offers so little to the conversation, although that is not my major concern.

Our largest media outlets present Seymour’s solutions and arguments as simply one side of the coin. New Zealanders need to be better informed about these bills, and they will not be with a media that is unwilling to take a stand and fill in the gaps between the sparse lines admitted by the architect of this neoliberal power play.

And so the Jack will not return to the box; why would he when he can scare people with mistruths in full view?

I’m sure you all know this song, with the incomparable Ray Charles; just try not to think of you-know-who too much while you’re singing it.