I’ve just come back from representing Labour at the Wellington Cathedral ANZAC Day Service, and then at the NZ War Memorial in Buckle St.
Each service was appropriately solemn – the more so as the tragic knowledge of the helicopter accident this morning became known by those present. Neither glorified war. At both, a uniquely New Zealand atmosphere prevailed. Biculturalism felt unforced; there were nice and sometimes accidental touches of informality. There was a sense of unbrassy confidence and dignity – a sense of a country and a community that had come to terms with itself.
It’s a case, I’m afraid, of the people leading, and the politicians being left way behind. I couldn’t help but contrast the feeling of right-ness of each ceremony today with the bad taste that the immaturity of the debate last week about our identity as a nation left in my mouth.
First, we had the National/Maori Party colluding over the covert accession to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Then we had a heap of uninformed rhetoric about what our accession would mean. To top it all off, National, ACT and the Maori Party bloc-voted to stop a bill to allow people to vote on whether NZ should eventually become a republic going to a select committee for public submissions. During that debate, a whole lot of dishonest rhetoric was repeated by Government members.
It’s well-known in Labour circles that I thought we should have acceded to the Declaration when we were in Government. Around the time that the new ALP Government was deciding that Australia should do so, I spent time with Rob McLelland, Australia’s Attorney-General, and Stephen Smith, its Minister of Foreign Affairs, discussing the mechanics of their intended accession, and the statement of reservations that would be made at the time on Australia’s behalf. It seemed to me that we could do something similar in New Zealand, so that accession could take place, in an honest and forthright way, preserving the paths already taken here in an attempt to redress past historical wrongs. The Labour cabinet here received strong official advice to the contrary, and in the end that advice prevailed.
I regret that. But I can say that open and respectful debates have occurred within the Labour caucus on the subject. Those debates have centered on the merits of the Declaration, the extent to which it can represent customary international law without the accession of two major common law jurisdictions that have enforced indigenous rights – the US and Canada- and whether an effectively partial accession would be an act of good faith on New Zealand’s part. These are the real questions around the Declaration. They deserve proper debate.
Ditto the issues around moving toward becoming a republic. We had an excellent caucus debate about the Bill. Better yet, colleagues decided to support the legislation. They could see the value of people getting to debate the issue through the select committee process. How disappointing, then, to get down to the House on Wednesday night to watch ACT not even bother to take a call, the Maori Party trot out all sorts of inaccurate rhetoric about how the bill was inconsistent with the Treaty, and the Nats talk about how the debate would be “divisive”, so we shouldn’t have it.
New Zealanders are more comfortable than their elected representatives on questions about their identity. It’s time for politicians to catch up.
Intelligent commentary here on the Bill – http://publicaddress.net/6588
Good points Charles. I was also watching the debates in Parliament last week with equal contempt. I think we also saw the true colours of the ACT Party and their vial leader, Mr Hide when he attacked Maori culture and values as “hocus pocus” and roared on about democracy, as though he had the moral high ground on the issue.
And yes, very displeasing about the Head of State Referenda Bill, especially the way Maori and ACT voted.
Oop, you forgot Jim Anderton also voted the Head of State Referenda Bill down as well.
Hope that helps an you don’t forget again
You could have tried to wait till tomorrow to bag the govt aye? today is meant to be non political!
Yeah pretty tasteless posting political attack material in your ANZAC post, Charles. Show some class, man.
The status quo is working.
Mallard for head of state 2025
I was quite disappointed with Labour’s response to the government acceding the declaration.
Generally speaking, it was the right decision to call National and the Māori Party out on this being window dressing.
If their decision was made on genuine grounds then the government would take no pride in actions that have severely undercut Māori development.
But this does not mean that we are principled in opposing the accession! Labour should have supported the declaration in 2007.
Our decision this week was shameful. It should be added to our list of pending mea culpa along with the Foreshore & Seabed Legislation.
@stephensmikm – ANZAC Day is inherently political.
ANZAC day is a good day to talk about identity and what is important to us.
Charles my memory is that it wasn’t the advice that drove the decision not to accede to the Declaration but the firmly held view of many of the Cabinet and caucus that we should not pretend to aspire to things that we just didn’t believe in. My view is that if you accede in good faith you have to have an intention of moving towards the clauses of the Declaration.
To do otherwise is to mislead and we decided we were not prepared to do that – even with the legalistic type of out clauses that Key and McCully put in Sharples speech.
My view is that until this example New Zealand has had much higher tests than most countries on treaty and similar document wording and that has been a good thing.
And for anyone who gets excited that Labour MPs have different views read About up and to the right.
I really have to disagree on that, Waitangi day is inherently political but ANZAC day has nothing about it other than reflection whatsoever
For goodness sake, while Waitangi was an important document WW1 and the way our boys were treated by the Brit generals is a vital part of our history and development as a nation. Talking about how we have gone on from then – the influence of the UN and speculating about the future is an important part of ANZAC day.
Life is not all lived looking in the rear vision mirror – sometimes you’ve got to take those lessons and look to the future.
Hon. Mr Mallard
I’m going to wait until 12.01 to respond, I won’t tarnish today like you but clearly you need to see the bigger picture
sorry that should also really be addressed to Angus and Mr Chavuel MP
Too right, don’t go riling our future head of state!
which one, Hon Mr Mallard or Mr Chavuel?
Well those of us who have been involved in today’s events since 5.45am won’t be waiting up.
Good post Charles. Thanks.
@stephensmikm Having a discussion is not disrespecting the day. I don’t think anyone here (or on any other blog which included political comment today) takes for granted for one moment that we owe a lot to the huge sacrifices made by so many so that that we could have the luxury of being free to have such discussions.
Hon Trevor Mallard of course!
@ Nicola Wood
Well since the Hon Mr Mallard doesn’t want to wait up I’ll not bother with that but yes you are right that they fought for our freedoms but then again you wouldn’t burn a flag or spit on the ground in front of a veteran but it’s a freedom our men fought for. I suppose it’s a Moral choice which way you look at it you can argue whether ANZAC is about identity but I think the identity has been created already in this sense of our Soldiers identity , It’s not our own that needs to be researched today but their legacy. Today is a day of Reflection on what has happened with War, what caused the deaths, how to ever prevent such atrocities within theworld again, how to stop the present conflicts , that is what ANZAC day is about
Yeah, I agree with Stephen, we could debate things any old time, but it’s nice to just let today be about reflection.
Thanks for the comments folks, especially from those like Angus and Nicola with the class to use their own names rather than hiding behind pseudonyms.
If I’ve really offended anyone by sharing the reflections that occurred to me during the superb ANZAC ceremonies I attended, I apologise for disturbing your sensibilities.
Trevor, what you say is a useful reminder of something that was not reflected as clearly as it should have been in my original post – this debate was going on inside caucus well before I got there. Doubtless, it will continue. It’s good we agree that the debate should concern the substance and effect of the Declaration.
“with the class to use their own names rather than hiding behind pseudonyms.” – Cheers mate, at least we give our time to this blog. There’s no need to take a swipe at people who choose to separate their real lives from their comments on this blog. I don’t need negativity like that, I’m going.
@ Charles Chavuel
There is a number of reason some of us hide behind pseudonyms.
I made a conscious decision to speak out and use one instead of my name due to first logging on here and being outspoken about the cutting of the TIA. I didn’t want to end up having to cut my phone off too, nor abuse yelled at me in the street in front of my children. To me it wasn’t worth the risk to myself or my children in that respect.
Maybe some would see that as a bit cowardly but I couldn’t put myself or my family through that. I saw it as sensible.
And no you haven’t offended me by sharing your reflections.
I agree with what Trevor said, that its a day to look at where we were, where we are now and what direction we as a country, we want to head.
Wooaw! “with the class to use their own names rather than hiding behind pseudonyms”
So.. The writers behind the standard?… Classless?
It’s pretty obvious that there are people who have problems with the status of the Maori as an indigenous people, any change of the flag or move to republican status.
To them that is the politics of identity they confuse with liberalism, thus of course it should in their way of thinking be subordinated to society nationalism – or ultimate patriotism in the form of service to Crown, flag and country. To them respect for the institutions of government and the defence of the realm take precedence over the identity politics of the people.
Of course they will couch the call for respecting the day (silence of identity politics) in the terms of sacrifice of lives and the cause of peace, but it’s a little cynical and exploitative.
Charles, I thought you were of a party that wanted an egalitarian/classless society and regarded the contribution of each individual as equally valid …
@Charles Chavuel
I’m Commenting with my full name, I just did with the last name first like my email and since many people already call me by my last name it’s far easier to work with, you can easily find me in the Electoral roll with that if you wanted (or indeed online), I don’t use it the other way around because 1. usually a website already has a person with my rather generic name around , 2. it’s far easier to write out on a key board and 3.that’s how I sign on several other blogs
I’m sorry if you don’t like the fact some of us comment without using our full and proper names but some people comment from workplaces that aren’t too chuffed about seeing someone commenting on a political blog in the same way as someone’s drunken keg party!
Quite simply, you may have just lost a few voters for yourself and for Labour just by saying such a rude thing, by attacking people who want to discuss things, I am quite happy to give you my full name and address if you want it since as an MP I feel I could potentially trust you on that (since Philip Field and Worth not so sure)but alot of people do not want to be attacked in private as well as in public for their actions – if someone gives out their name with a slightly controversial tone that person along with everyone else in NZ with that name or even initial set could be badggered for it
oh and what spud said too!
Poor spud
I think you have class Spud
even if Charles doesn’t 
@ Oliver – yeah it seems to be pretty regrettable comment. Also it doesn’t consider the realities of the internet. *Everyone* uses nicknames and user handles on the ‘net for freer social networking and discussion, using your actual real name is much rarer.
Are you genuinely Happy with that comment Mr Chauvel – another blog has already picked up on it as in the 2nd link- not the first unfortunately accidental one
Agreed that Cahrles, you lacked a little class deriding people for not using their “real names”. This is a blog on the Internetsphere, it’s about content/ideas not personalities. I could post as Mickey Mouse but surely it is the relevance of my “ideas” or opinions that matter?
Oliver ANZAC Day may be a sacred cow to you and you celebrate that by no political discourse at all, for others, who we go to war with and why is very political, and relevant every day. Let’s not forget that many who went to war were doing so as an “adventure” not only some highly held ideal of protection of the realm and home. That adventure was soon dissolved upon arrival on various beaches, as retold by many at the Auckland War Memorial permanent display.
Good post Charles and a perfectly appropriate time to do so. Anzac day is all about war and peace and why shouldn’t we consider those issues.
It is also about freedom, including the freedom of speech. Long may that right exist, especially when it is exercised in a sensitive manner the way that you have.
@Tracey – I think you meant to direct that at someone else? Stephensmikm perhaps? I didn’t say anything about the political or not side to Anzac day??
I’m sure that you regret writing that. It has taken focus off your post. Trevor and Clare know who I am.
Thanks Oliver.
I wasn’t disagreeing with the post, but when I saw what Stephen wrote I wanted to tell him that I agreed with him because I do think ANZAC Day should be focussed on remembrance. I was just letting him know that I understood where he was coming from when he said that he wanted to answer at 12:01, I wasn’t attacking the subject of the thread.
@A Mother –
Charles, I think your post was tasteless and a little juvenile, and that your political radar needs recalibrating. In my view, ANZAC day is not a convenient platform for political debate. It’s a day of solemn thanksgiving and rememberance, end of story.
@oliver
Yeah That does sound like something addressed to me
To those criticising Charles Chauvel for posting this on ANZAC Day:
Watch the One News report of the Prime Minister’s behaviour at Gallipoli. Draw your own conclusions.
Sorry Oliver…
I agree Sammy, donning a “hoodie” to get down with the young attendees was VERY solemn and non politicised.