As voters, we know and recognise that politicians all too often make bold promises during election campaigns. Promises that we know are obviously just too ambitious.
And don’t we justly feel we have the right to hold our elected officials accountable for the promises they make during campaigns?
If it can be demonstrated that the party knowingly or recklessly made a promise that they knew probably could not be fulfilled, what ability do we, as the people who handed the levers of power to the errant politicians, have to make them accountable for reckless promises?
Do you think it should be possible to pursue legal action against the party if they fail to deliver on their promise? Or do you think that it is sufficient to hold them accountable through the three-year election cycle?
A politician making a promise and you voting for him does not create a legal contract.
With our political system relying more on coalitions or consensus, thus the ability to hold politicians’ ‘feet to the fire’ diminishes. With our MMP system, the party list arrangement leads to a disconnect between MPs and the people they are supposed to represent, as list MPs are not directly accountable to their constituents as electorate MPs are.
If a politician does not keep his promises, you simply don’t vote for him next time. Unfortunately, it is another 18 months before we can demonstrate our discontent and frustration to our current political leadership.
Disturbingly all of the above matters not one iota when the democratically elected government, for nearly three years, takes the nation down a path that was, on no occasion, divulged in campaigning. Especially when very strong indicators pointed to the opposite standpoint being taken!
So, are we being confronted with something considerably more devious than normal broken political promises? Something more sinister?
I am referring to lies by omission.
Lying by omission is the act of leaving out crucial information in an attempt to mislead someone. Lying by omission is a form of deception that is not easily identified because everything you’re saying is actually true. However, it doesn’t paint the full picture.
What you are not saying is the lie!
Now I contend this act of lying by omission could be particularly germane to Chris Luxon and the National Party’s 2023 election campaign.
During the 2023 election campaign Luxon made very few statements on co-governance but when he did, they were emphatic and unequivocable –
· “National’s position on co-governance is clear and will be applied by us in government.” (1)
· “We do not support co-governance of public services.” (1)
· “We are one country: we deliver our public services to people on the basis of need, not ethnicity.” (1)
· “If it is genuinely about co-governance of the delivery of public services, that’s something that I feel uncomfortable with.” (2)
· “…it was a “challenging”" topic, and the prime minister and government needed to make the case to the public if it was going to push ahead”. (2)
So, what I am trying to illustrate is that those very narrow and defined statements around co-governance by Chris Luxon, made in the election campaign, were, in reality, cleverly designed to create an impression of ‘National will be resolute on the cessation and removal of co-governance’ without identifying his actual agenda of ensuring Māori programmes will be given precedence and Māori are fully involved in decision-making and will be partnering with government in many of the functions of governance.
A half-truth is a whole lie!
In March 2022, Luxon stated, “I think there is a real need for us to have a genuine, high-quality conversation around co-governance ... when you don’t take the people with you, and you don’t frame up what it’s about, as a result you leave people behind and it drives more division.” (2)
I have not heard one single sentence relating to a “high-quality conversation around co-governance” ever leave Luxon’s mouth! Yet regularly we see co-governance, albeit in varying disguises, being systematically implemented.
Unless, of course, you classify “…there is nothing in the Treaty Principles Bill I like” as a “high-quality conversation around co-governance”.
Frequently we read or see further proof of Prime Minister Luxon’s agenda to appease, sponsor and advance the cause of the Māori sovereignty movement.
Is Luxon’s “don’t upset Māori” thinking naïve? Very!
Is Luxon’s path of appeasement irresponsible? Extremely!
Is Luxon’s sponsorship of co-governance dangerous? Incalculably!
Of particular concern currently regarding Chris Luxon’s/National’s advancement of all things Māori, is the recent announcement by Minister for Māori Development Tama Potaka of a new committee to work on formally integrating tikanga Māori into parliament.
A substantial issue and a matter of great consequence such as this would not be just the product of Minister Potaka’s enterprise. It would be a proposal fully supported by the prime minister.
This move represents another major threat to democracy and of He Puapua becoming a reality in New Zealand. If tikanga were to stop simply at aspects of parliamentary ceremonial process, that might just be acceptable. But we all know it will not stop there.
The inexact and malleable nature of tikanga gives enormous power to Māori activists to reshape parliamentary legislation to suit their purposes. If our Westminster parliamentary system is to survive, it must do so with clarity of process and this would appear to be now seriously at risk.
It is now clear for all to see, Chris Luxon has become He Puapua’s unwavering and most influential sponsor!
National voters have been seriously disenfranchised by Prime Minister Luxon and the National Party.
I believe it is becoming impossible not to say the prime minister, ably assisted by the minister for Māori development, are campaigners and advocates for the Māorification of New Zealand!
“I believe in constitutional issues – you spend your political capital, you make your case, and you take people with you.” (3)
That being the case, we must ask the prime minister why is he not leading a constitutional discussion that would give clarity to Treaty of Waitangi principles, a discussion that would again unify New Zealanders and enhance trust in his government?
Under Luxon’s leadership, National are now burning their political capital at a prodigious rate! For me and many others the gauge is hovering just outside the red sector and the big E!
Is Luxon’s control over the National caucus so powerful that no caucus member is prepared to confront Luxon’s failure to read the room and his failure to listen and engage with the concerns of his party’s electors?
Or is it simply the status, perquisites and remuneration the role delivers that holds a greater attraction than actually providing support for democracy and its adherents?
That is what they were elected to do, wasn’t it?
Can we ever trust the National Party again?
John F Kennedy, in 1962, could have been talking to Chris Luxon when stating, “For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
References
(2) https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/464214/luxon-backs-co-governance-debate-shies-from-referendum
(3) https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/01/24/ratana-luxon-says-co-governance-debate-divisive-and-immature/
