2025 was transformational across multiple fronts. Not in a pleasant way, but I would argue, probably in a necessary way. Across the many battlefronts of taiao, reo, education, hauora, justice and living costs, we have battled, marched, occupied, and intervened on the streets, in front of the select committees, in international forums, in the media, in classrooms, courtrooms, offline and online. The fatigue is showing in our personal wellbeing, in our relationships, and in our movements. I think this era of national and global “colonial hyperdrive” has forced many to confront difficult truths – possibly the greatest confrontation relates to the concept that we have met over, repeatedly, in recent years: Kotahitanga.

It’s been on the nation’s lips over the past two years, and yet, heading into 2026 there appear to be more schisms than ever. Indeed, the kaupapa of Kotahitanga was led out by the Kīngitanga, and fast-forward to 2025, questions and anger hang over their focus on “Māori capitalism”; Iwi leaders have repeatedly convened over the concept, but many have been conspicuously absent from the frontline battles on bills such as MACA, the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill. Te Paati Māori featured at the forefront of the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti, which was an incredible Kotahitanga moment in time for both Māori and Tangata Tiriti alike, yet not only has it failed to maintain that revolutionary momentum, but has struggled to hold its own infrastructure together.

We are fatigued, all of us (it’s showing in our personal health and the health of our relationships) and it is tempting to fall into despondency and scepticism about motives, but I honestly do believe that, more often than not, it simply comes down to a bunch of unexplored assumptions about who “we” are and what “we” stand for, and this is a concern I have held from the very outset of this discussion:

Kotahitanga requires a unity of purpose, and unity of purpose requires a shared understanding of the nature of the problem.

It was never said with an intention to be negative or contrary. Our differing understanding of the nature of the problem would always lead to conflict on how we should respond.

For some, the problem is party-based. They believe that simply getting out this coalition and replacing it with Labour, or even a better version of National, is the answer.

For others, the problem is that we place too much focus on government, and they have advocated for generating wealth through trade, in order to make government oversight redundant and achieve what they are calling “economic rangatiratanga”.

For others still, the problem is much broader: it is capitalism and colonial privilege. For this group, the solutions of the first two groups simply entrench the problem more deeply, and probably they throw up in their mouth a little when hearing about “Māori capitalism” and the NZ Initiatives take on “economic rangatiratanga”.

There are others still who, rather than looking at systems and parties, they look at individuals – the problem, as they see it, is David Seymour, or Christopher Luxon. Through constructing a particular person into a demon, they have a target for their rage, and it usually comes with a belief that simply removing that person is all that is required.  

And yet all of these very different perspectives can meet and talk all day about Kotahitanga, and liberation of our people as if we are all on the same page about what these things mean. We’re holding the hui, and creating extravagant optics about it all, but skipping the fundamentals. Small wonder that the outputs of these hui-a-motu would be short on action points, and big on soundbites.

Added to this is the fact that colonial power thrives upon distraction: it deliberately keeps us engaged in fighting so many fires, on so many fronts, that we fail to address the arsonist, and fail to envision a different way of wielding power. We have treated the parental issue of *power* like it is just another matter alongside the multiple oppressions in the realms of reo, environment, justice, health, housing or even the cost of living. Power is not simply another realm. Power defines and shapes all other realms.

And, failing to sit in wānanga over colonial power, we have failed to reckon with how colonialism has replicated itself within power structures of te Ao Māori.  

Now I acknowledge, it can feel difficult and thankless to critically examine yourself and your leadership while you are under a regime that is degrading you and your people every damn day. From this logic stems the responses of “Just get on with it” or “Stop that, you’re doing the colonisers work for them” – but critical accountability is not the same as a colonial attack. When we critically examine ourselves, it is with the intention to make ourselves better, when they do it, it is with full intention to destroy and discredit Māori as a whole. Please note, this is not because the colonial gaze matters – it is because the colonial gaze has become a very effective tool for recruiting the disenfranchised. The colonial gaze has learnt to validate our discontent and sense of betrayal by our own. The colonial gaze has become very sophisticated at legitimising and inflating our fear and distrust of each other, and the colonial gaze dominates our media narratives. This is exactly how Trump courted the working class, and how the fascist far-right secured power in Italy, and Brazil. It’s exactly how Destiny Church recruits from te Ao Māori, and exactly how we wind up with Māori zionists and Māori MAGA.

So critical examination of internal power is unescapable and necessary work for us to do. Without it, we have zero accountability and operate upon blind faith (which is exactly what results from “soundbite” outputs). That, in turn, invites corruption and empire in the front door, and once it sets up shop, it goes about putting people and processes in place to protect its role, and becomes very, very difficult to remove.

You may be reading this and thinking of a specific person or whānau. Let me hold your screen-hand and tell you – it is everywhere. I do not yet know of any iwi that doesn’t have individuals and whānau who have navigated colonial systems by securing proximity to power, and aggressively maintaining it. In nearly every case, I can tell you, they believe they are in service to their people. It starts off (and is generally defended) as “adaptation” but over time, it hardens into gatekeeping and exclusion.

The destination for this type of behaviour doesn’t have to be imagined, for many of us, it is already there, and has become normalised.

Any of these scenarios sound familiar?

• Late night phonecalls around committee members to secure “votes” on an agenda item the night before a hui.
• Charters and constitutions being amended to allow for people to stay in power.
• One particular whānau dominating trusts, committees, power roles and staff pools.
• Opportunities flowing down intergenerationally within the same whānau lines.
• Secretive and exclusionary meetings of “groups within groups”.
• Abusing “codes of conduct” within meetings to shut down reasonable dissent.
• Abusing cultural practices (eg using the reo, tikanga, or waiata) to exclude those who are culturally dispossessed.
• “Stacking” committees and trusts with loyalists to a particular cause.
• Lack of communication and transparency to the collective.
• Disproportionate focus on getting individuals into roles of power rather than the liberational work for the masses.

None of this is to attack our own, but merely to point out that these behaviours extend from colonial domination, not Indigenous origins and certainly they are not geared for Indigenous liberation. They are a necessary part of the work to decolonise power.

I’m not the first person to say this, nor has this issue only appeared under this government… many (mostly wāhine) have stood up to call internal power to account. More often than not they are shouted down, ignored, or called divisive, disloyal and then isolated and excluded. Naming patriarchy, privilege, and power abuse comes with dire consequences in te Ao Māori, and this is exactly why we have to come together over it. If we are real about achieving a kotahitanga that means more than a slick social media soundbite, then we can’t keep leaving it up to individuals who call problems out and get attacked for it. We have to get a shared understanding about what it means. Our failure to critically examine our ideas and approaches to power will continue to undermine any vision of kotahitanga, treaty justice, or true liberation for all of our people.

Aotearoa has invested very little into research and education on racism. As a result, we are still inclined to focus on racism as an interpersonal experience rather than a system, and concepts such as internal racism, lateral racism, systemic and environmental racism are far less understood, in general.

It’s also important to understand that racism is uniquely shaped by factors such as geographic location, political history, economy and, of course colonial interference. So while there are commonalities to, for instance, anti-blackness (eg use of racial slurs, cultural extraction), it is also uniquely shaped by factors such as geographic location, political history, and economy.

Environmental racism in Aotearoa is unavoidably shaped by the fact that we are a moana nation. Of course, this starts with the cultural – our relationships and history across Te Moananui a Kiwa inform who we are as Māori and as a nation. For Māori, the moana is an ancestor, a sacred site, a food cupboard, a school, and a highway. Geographically, we are never far from the ocean. No part of New Zealand’s landbase is more than 120km away from the shoreline, and most people here live within 50km of the ocean. Our moana estate outsizes our land-base. Our moana plays a major role in the economy, being estimated at a value of over $10billion. It plays a huge part of our day to day lives, identity, and economy.

We must also take into account that colonial racism is the bedrock of the nation-state of New Zealand. This is important because land and water dispossession and exploitation are distinct features of colonial racism.

So naturally, when environmental racism shows up in Aotearoa, it will show up in relation to our moana, in powerful ways. All of these factors come together, within the Marine and Coastal Areas Amendment Bill, or as MP Takuta Ferris recently noted, the easily-renamed “Foreshore and Seabed Here-We-Go-Again Bill”, about to be passed in parliament.

If you listen to the current government, they will tell you that, in deciding what it takes for Māori to establish “customary title” (ie a rightful claim on a coastal area), the courts have interpreted the act wrong, and so they are compelled to change the legislation and essentially raise the bar for that process, making it more difficult for customary title to be successfully claimed.

This is not the first time the government has decided to legislate over the top of the courts, in relation to our foreshore and seabed. The last major time this happened was in the landmark Ngāti Apa v Solicitor General case in 2003. In that case, a number of iwi from the Marlborough Sounds sought a determination from the Māori Land Court over whether parts of the foreshore and seabed in their rohe could be investigated for customary title. The Crown tried to block this by arguing that the foreshore and seabed belonged to the Crown by default — an argument that had been assumed as legal fact for over a century.

The Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sian Elias, rejected this claim. The Court held that the Māori Land Court did indeed have jurisdiction to determine whether customary title existed, and crucially, that Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed had never been lawfully established. This meant that iwi and hapū could pursue claims to prove their customary rights under the law, something that had been denied to us for generations.

In reaching this decision, the Court explicitly overturned the infamous Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877) precedent — and that brings us to the Doctrine of Discovery. You see, the 1877 case over Ngāti Toa lands had utilised an infamous courtcase in so-called United States called Johnson v M’intosh, where Chief Justice John Marshall found that the act of “discovery” granted Europeans title to native land. This of course, occurred off the back of three centuries of European society being shaped by religious doctrines which gave them entitlement to possess all “islands, lands, harbors, and seas”. From 1877 onwards, with the embedding of the Doctrine of Discovery into New Zealand land law, Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington was then used as further precedent for multiple cases of native title extinguishment in Aotearoa, keeping the Doctrine of Discovery an active principle in our legal system throughout the following century.

In 2004, when Chief Justice Sian Elias rejected and overturned Wi Parata, the Court restored a measure of legal recognition to Māori customary rights that had been buried under colonial legal fictions for over a century – and had that been that, it would have been an interesting lesson about the time that the Doctrine of Discovery was rejected in New Zealand. But even though the New Zealand judiciary were ready to start rejecting the Doctrine of Discovery… the legislature were clearly not.

And so Helen Clark’s Labour government, having decided that this finding was politically inconvenient for them (not least because Don Brash was holding propaganda speaking  tours and funding full page ads about the government giving all the beaches to Māori and that New Zealanders would all be locked out of the beach)…. simply legislated it all away, through the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which formally took the entire foreshore and placed it in the ownership of the Crown. It was the largest act of colonial land-theft in modern history. Then in 2011 the National government, alongside the Māori Party, passed the Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Act, which didn’t repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act but created some standards for establishing customary title, so that Māori could claim back their coastline. It was still colonial, it was still unfair, but as always, our people worked with what they were given, and so multiple cases were brought forward to claim back our mana takutai, our coastal territories. These cases went into millions of dollars, and represented thousands of hours by Māori lawyers, expert historians, kau mātua and many others who worked to reclaim the stolen legacy of our ancestors. It wasn’t perfect, it wasn’t always successful, but bit by bit, more often than not, it was working.

And then along came this government. The most hyper-colonial government we have seen, in many, many years.

And again, just like 2004, the government decided to simply legislate it all away, and lay waste to the last decade of work, by changing the rules yet again, making the standard for establishing customary title nearly impossible, and worse than that, making it retrospective, so even those who won their cases, would lose their coastline all over again, anyway.

Which all makes today’s news, that the original land of Wi Parata has finally been bought back by Ngāti Toa Rangatira, somewhat bittersweet. But it is also a powerful moment to honour this tīpuna Wiremu Te Kakakura Parata, who bravely stood against the Doctrine of Discovery being applied to his whenua, in the face of extreme colonial supremacy. An act of environmental racism that would become the basis of multiple other acts of environmental racism through to this day. He knew the right thing to do, and the right thing to say, regardless of who stood before him. Last week, at the second reading of the bill, we heard this momo again in the voice of Ngāti Wai rangatira Aperahama Edwards, speaking his truth, in the language of this land, from the gallery as parliament again moved to exercise the Doctrine of Discovery on our coastline.

Next week, the Marine and Coastal Areas Amendment Bill will enter its third reading and apparently pass into law.

On Thursday morning, I listened to Chris Bishop bluster his way through an interview on Breakfast tv and amongst the very confused and confusing lines of reason from the very simple question of “how can you justify passing this against such clear public opposition”, he stumbled into the “settlement” of New Zealand and the rights to “common law” that Māori retained at that time.

Here is the link to the full interview (it starts at 1:22:40). Apart from a blustery Bishop (right) you’ll also get to enjoy Labour MP Kieran McNulty (left)affirming the right of courts to interpret legislation as they see fit and expressing concern that this National government could simply legislate over the top of that, with no apparent reflection that it was his party who did all of that, to the letter, first, and also no commitment to repeal it if they get back into power.

Again this is a helpful example of environmental racism. In spite of what Chris Bishop says here, even the English draft document favoured by government as “the treaty” guarantees full, exclusive, undisturbed possession of our fisheries and coastline for as long as we desire to retain it (and of course the actual treaty, Te Tiriti, affirms our full political authority over our worlds. Beyond that, as I mentioned in the outset, our own environmental legal system, aka tikanga, is also a part of our social estate that we are entitled to keep regardless of people who show up with guns, greed, supreme entitlement, and a strange idea that everywhere they travel around the world, they can take their legal system with them and plant it on the land much like their flags, swords and diseases. It really is some kind of weird arcane idea that their magic pink toes, upon coming into contact with Indigenous land, automatically extinguish native title, along with native legal systems and native political authority. This is exactly the logic Chris Bishop appears to be clinging to when he describes the bill today.

For the rest of us, this is another page in New Zealand’s shameful colonial rap sheet. A long criminal history of theft and illegitimate domination. We did not stand for it in 1877. We did not stand for it in 2004. We do no stand for it in 2025, and we will continue to show up, and fight by all means, for the rightful return of all our ancestors left for us.

Toitū te whenua, toitū te moana, toitū te iwi Māori, ake, ake, ake.

GUEST POST – TANIA WAIKATO

Are you sick of the coalition of chaos?

Today David Seymour ascends to Deputy Prime Minister in the second half of a term of government that has done more damage to race relations in this country than any other in living history. But it’s not just Māori who are under fire from the seemingly never-ending obsession to serve corporations instead of the people. It’s everyone who isn’t wealthy.

From cutting pay equity for women and funding for disabled support, to handing out tax cuts to people that own more than one house and reviving a once destined for death tobacco industry, you really have to ask – who does this government truly serve?

The Regulatory Standards Bill is an ugly name for an ugly Bill. But the opportunity that this piece of attempted constitutional vandalism by David Seymour and the ACT party represents to potentially crack this coalition wide open is one that anyone who doesn’t want David Seymour running this country permanently should grab with both hands – because we only have a fleeting window until the 23 of June to do it.

Am I talking about a snap election? Absolutely. How? Let me explain.

The coalition agreements that birthed the current legislative monstrosity included an agreement to pass “a” Regulatory Standards Act “as soon as practicable”. This Bill has been on the ACT party’s Christmas wish list for more than twenty years and has been voted down on the three previous attempts to pass it. On the most recent attempt in 2021, the Regulatory Standards Bill was blocked by an unhappy Treasury, who knew that the provisions that will allow for companies to sue the government if they pass laws infringing their property rights could bankrupt our country. Yes, you heard me correctly. The current Regulatory Standards Bill could wind up giving your hard- earned taxpayer dollars to multibillion dollar corporations. Sound like a bad idea? Treasury used to think so too.

But now both National and NZ First have agreed to let this ultimate restraint on the independence of Parliament and dog collar to the might of overseas foreign interests be strapped around the neck of the Beehive. Or have they?

The day immediately following our Toitū te Tiriti Waitangi Tribunal hearing into the Regulatory Standards Bill on 14 May — which found that the Crown had breached the Treaty Principles by failing to consult with Māori on this Bill due to its constitutional significance — Newsroom released a story quoting NZ First leader, Winston Peters:

“Winston Peters has revealed New Zealand First is seeking changes to Act leader David Seymour’s controversial Regulatory Standards Bill, describing the law as “a work in progress”. Peters’ remarks come despite his party’s obligation to support the law through its coalition agreement with National.

However, asked by Newsroom on Thursday whether New Zealand First was fully supportive of the Regulatory Standards Bill, Peters said: “Put it this way: it is a work in progress still, substantially.” Peters confirmed his party was seeking changes to the bill but did not explain what those were, saying they would be shared “in due course as those changes are made”.

In further comments after Question Time, he said he was confident the law would be drafted in such a way that New Zealand First could support it, but did not say what would happen if that was not the case.”

Well let’s talk about what might happen, if that is not the case. And more to the point, let’s talk about what might happen if there is an almighty backlash of submissions in opposition made on this dangerous Bill over the next three weeks on a similar scale to the 300,000 submissions made on David Seymour’s most recent project – the Treaty Principles Bill.

In a brilliant article published this week in The Post, former Green Party leader Russell Norman took us all on a stroll down memory lane to remind us (and Winston Peters) that it was less than a decade ago that NZ First introduced the “Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill” that aimed to stop the exact disaster that the Regulatory Standards Bill now seeks to create – allowing powerful multinational companies to sue the government for compensation whenever a new law affects their “property” rights. Russell wrote:

“NZ First still maintains it will ensure “that the government always serves in the interests of all New Zealanders”. But this bill tries to redefine our constitutional and legal order so it serves corporate interests instead of New Zealanders.

NZ First has the power to stop it. Winston became famous for helping to end the new right revolution of the 1980s and 90s, it would be a shame if he ended his career dancing to Roger Douglas’ tune.”

Winston Peters steps down today as Deputy Prime Minister, having served the full first-half of the Coalition government’s term in order to make way for David Seymour to have his turn as second in command. But anyone who is old enough to remember why Winston Peters was dubbed the “King-Maker” after holding the balance of power to create a position for himself as Deputy Prime Minister under both a National-led and Labour-led coalition government will know this. Winston has a plan. Winston always has a plan.

And whether that plan includes cutting David Seymour’s reign as Deputy Prime Minister short in order to honour the long-held roots of the NZ First party that pledged to always put New Zealanders first by blocking the Regulatory Standards Bill, and causing a snap election remains to be seen. All I can tell you is this. If you make a submission against the Regulatory Standards Bill, it just might.

As a collective of artists and movement leaders, we are gravely disappointed to be making this public statement.

We have spent the past three weeks attempting to address a serious violation of our rights and principles in private, within the bounds of tikanga, only to be met with deflection, minimisation, silence and evasion. The harm caused by the unauthorised use of our work and the subsequent censorship within the National Gallery of Australia demands accountability, and we can no longer allow this issue to remain unaddressed.

Nine months ago copyright artwork of Robyn Kahukiwa, used as the trademark copyright image for Kia Mau, was taken without consent and incorporated into an installation piece exhibited in the National Gallery of Australia by the Savāge K’lub art collective, under the leadership of Rosanna Raymond. At no point were we asked for permission, nor would we have given it under the conditions in which it was displayed. The unauthorised use of our work was harmful in itself, but the situation was further compounded when the gallery, deeming a Palestinian flag in the installation a political risk, ordered it to be covered. The installation artists complied with this censorship, and in doing so, placed Robyn’s stolen image directly adjacent to the covered flag, creating the false impression that we endorsed both the censorship and the installation itself. We only learned of this months later, when the media reported on the gallery’s decision to cover the flag.

In all of the statements made by the gallery, and Rosanna, it is inferred that the “artists” in question are Rosanna Raymond and the Savāge K’lub. Rosanna Raymond featured and wrote for Australian art publications over those nine months as both the curator and artist. It is not once mentioned that the art for this installation is actually sourced from other artists. All of the public statements made by Rosanna have invisibilised the actual artists on whose behalf she made the decision to capitulate to the gallery. Rosanna has also offensively referred to the art as a “by-product” of her relationship with the gallery, a relationship which was prioritised over standing in solidarity with Palestinians and doing the right thing by the actual artists.

Upon discovering Robyn’s work had been stolen and misrepresented, we sought an explanation directly from The Savāge K’lub, and agreed to meet. In the meeting, they admitted fault, apologised profusely, claimed that it was down to being foolhardy and rushed, and promised urgent and immediate accountability. These statements left us with the false impression that it was a recent event. We insisted that the restorative pathway center the Palestinian community (whilst also including us and addressing our concerns) and recommended they reach out to them. The Savāge K’lub agreed to this, however they failed to disclose that the installation had been on display and censored for nine months at that point, before media attention pushed the issue into the broader public sphere and to our attention. This belies any excuse that we were not engaged was because the Savāge K’lub were “rushed”. We discussed the tapu of toi Māori, explained the importance of Robyn’s artwork, and the role that image played in protecting our movement from attacks, it is not just a shirt decoration. We also made it very clear that we found Rosanna’s statements in the media regarding their decision to capitulate to the gallery to be misleading, and unhelpful.

In the meeting, the Savāge K’lub also committed to a restorative process with us—one that has never materialised.

Savāge K’lub leaders have said that the Savāge K’lub will take collective responsibility. While we can respect that request, we feel strongly that as the leader of Savāge Klub, as the lead curator of the exhibition, as the media lead for the exhibition, and as a senior artist, Rosanna Raymond carries the bulk of responsibility.

Subsequent investigations revealed that this was not the first time the Savāge K’lub had stolen work from other artists, nor was it the first time they had made empty promises to correct their behaviour. It was shared with us that in 2022 the same installation was exhibited under the name of the Savāge Klub in England, and they were called out by artist Sarah Hudson who found out on social media that their work was included in the installation, without consent or credit. When queried, the exact same profuse apology, blame of being foolhardy and rushed, and commitment to not do this again was made to Sarah. Following Sarah’s information we found that Robyn’s Kia Mau image was also used in the 2022 exhibition, a fact that was also not disclosed in the earlier hui. It was this same artwork, called out in 2022 by Sarah Hudson as appropriated, that the Savāge K’lub then installed in the National Gallery of Australia in June 2024, again without seeking consent of the relevant, original artists.

It was also subsequently discovered that at least one other well-known and respected artist – Melanie Tangaere Baldwin – had her work included (also flanking the covered flag of Palestine) in the 2024-2025 National Gallery of Australia installation without her consent or knowledge. It then came to light that not only was this artwork fraudulently exhibited as the work of the SaVĀge K’lub, but they also accepted payment from the gallery for it, and withheld payment that should rightfully go to Robyn. None of this was information volunteered by the SaVĀge K’lub.

A written apology was later privately issued to Kia Mau and Robyn, but it was inadequate, downplaying what happened as a mere “failure to seek consent” rather than the theft and misrepresentation that it was. It did not address the intentionality that has become very clear by the fact that they reinstalled this artwork with full knowledge that consent should have been sought. We raised with the Savāge K’lub that we were, at that point, aware of much more information that had not been disclosed in the hui, which undermined our confidence in the process, belied the excuses that were offered, and suggested a greater level of intentionality. We explained that we could not accept the apology in its current form and insisted on full accountability, including public recognition of the harm done. We further asked to be connected to the Palestinian community. In response, Rosanna framed our concerns as accusations and ceased communication.

To be clear: We stand unequivocally in solidarity with Palestine. We would never have agreed to participate in an exhibition where our work was used to flank and legitimise the erasure of a Palestinian flag. The theft of our work not only violated copyright but also put the integrity of our movement at risk, misrepresenting our stance and undermining the very solidarity we hold with our Palestinian brothers and sisters.

We were assured by the Savāge K’lub that their statement and response at the closure of the exhibition would include and address “any and all misplaced relational/ reputational damage for you, and any other artists impacted by this mistake”. We responded by again requesting to be included in this process that is also about us, and requesting, for a third time, to be connected to the Palestinian community so that we could convey our distress and solidarity directly to them rather than through the SaVĀge K’lub. After this third request we were finally put in contact with the Palestinian community to complete that step.

We also emailed the National Gallery of Australia requesting that the work be removed immediately, and an apology issued. This has received no response.

We wish to make it clear that the statement and process undertaken on the weekend at the National Gallery of Australia was developed through a process that has excluded us as affected artists and activists. This is supremely ironic, given the issue is bound up in one of exclusion to begin with.

The Apology Event at the National Gallery of Australia

For us, as affected artists and activists, we consider the actions taken at the exhibition closure to be insincere and insufficient. The Director Nick Mitzevich centered art over human rights and property rights, framing art as the victim, and even framing himself as a victim who is apparently put into a difficult position of having to “balance” the gallery’s artistic interests against actual human rights interests. Rosanna made impassioned statements about seeing and hearing Indigenous people who have lost land and culture, even as she invisibilised us as victims of cultural theft, and herself as the lead perpetrator of said theft. She acknowledged it was important to take accountability for the decisions made in relation to the censorship, but completely ignored the fact that the censorship involved stolen work, thereby evading accountability. Incredibly, both Raymond and Mitzevich repeated the line “art is the answer” even as the gallery has refused to answer our email regarding the theft of copyright.

To Nick Mitzevich we say: Your actions and statement lack integrity. Were you real about wanting to engage in this discussion, you would have responded to our email. Art is not the answer. Human rights, honesty and dignity is the answer. Answering us when we email you is also an answer.

Both Nick and Rosanna consistently thanked each other for standing together as artists and gallery even in their difference. All of the references to “the artists” infer the SaVĀge K’lub alone, and not the artists from whom SaVĀge K’lub took in order to make the installation. At the very end of their statement, there is a vague, and very brief, acknowledgement that the SaVĀge K’lub “caused hurt”to some members of their own community, including Kia Mau, Robyn Kahukiwa and Melanie Tangere-Baldwin – but it does not say how we were hurt, it does not even allude to the issue of consent, let alone theft.

Rosanna Raymond made reference to media generated about this that “feeds the beast by taking words and twisting them up” – completely obscuring the fact that the vast majority of the media generated about this has been dominated by Rosanna’s statements and writings. It further ignores the agency that the SaVĀge K’lub exercised, and the fraudulent positioning of the SaVĀge K’lub as the rights holders over that artwork and victims of the gallery. It further ignores the fact that this particular installation has included stolen art since 2022, does not name Sarah Hudson as one of the artists also taken from.

We were very clear with the SaVĀge K’lub from the outset that an apology which does not correctly name the harm is not sufficient and does not amount to being accountable. Accordingly, we reject this as an act of contrition or healing.

We are making this statement publicly because private avenues have been exhausted and abused. We cannot allow this pattern of exploitation and theft to continue unchecked, nor can we allow our stolen work to be used in ways that distort our values. Solidarity cannot be at the expense of the integrity of our narrative. We have no way of knowing how many other times, or to whom else, this may have happened. Other artists and activists deserve to know the truth and to be protected from similar violations.

We call for:

• Full accountability from the Savāge K’lub and Rosanna Raymond
• Public acknowledgment of the theft (both in 2022 and 2024) and its consequences
• Public acknowledgement of the disrespect shown towards the artists in media and at the closure event, and towards the attempted restorative process which was bound in tikanga
• Meaningful action to meet the promises made for an inclusive restorative process and to ensure this does not happen again.
• Money earned by the inclusion of this artwork (in both 2022 and 2024) be shared amongst the rightful artists, and the Palestinian community.

Furthermore, we call upon the National Gallery of Australia to take responsibility and apologise for exhibiting stolen work and its complicity in the political censorship of Palestine.

Cultural appropriation of our moana region has, throughout time, contributed to sexual and physical violence towards Indigenous peoples and Indigenous women – it has always been inextricably linked to the stripping of sacredness. Cultural appropriation of toi Māori practices, and particularly from wāhine Māori, is unacceptable. Further more, our tikanga is there to protect tapu, not to cloak the violation of tapu. We expect more of our own, and consider it our responsibility to actively protect the integrity and dignity of our art, and our narrative, alongside the integrity and dignity of our Indigenous relations. If art is not centering human rights, and Indigenous rights, then it is colonising.

Solidarity is not selective, and cannot come at the cost of integrity. Theft and misrepresentation are not acceptable. Censorship in the name of political convenience is not neutrality—all of these actions are a choice. We reject these actions in their entirety and stand firm in our commitment to justice, integrity, and unwavering solidarity with Palestine and all oppressed peoples.

Tina Ngata, Robyn Kahukiwa, Melanie Tangaere-Baldwin, Sina Brown-Davis, Sarah Hudson, Kauae Raro Research Collective.

Yes, we’re now in a fully fledged, open, brazen plutocracy, where the wealthy govern. Many of us are aware that this has long been the case, but the difference now, is that it’s becoming much more visible. That doesn’t mean we have no power. It means we have to get real about how power operates under a plutocracy, as opposed to a democracy – and resist accordingly.

It’s now common knowledge that global and domestic wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, corporations wield more power than nations, and have more democratic weight than citizens. In a world where profit often outweighs people and planet, resistance can at times seem overwhelming and futile. This week, George Monbiot released a scathing situation report of the matter, outlining what many of us have been discussing for years now in a succinct and powerful statement: The billionaires have stepped out of the shadows. They are no longer governing from the back rooms, but brazenly from the front, and the age of plutocracy – where the world is governed by the wealthy – is well and truly upon us.

Interestingly, what Monbiot outlines here as the solution, is pretty much tino rangatiratanga. Community level (hapū level) self-determination, and as I discussed in my previous post – hyper-localised economies, including non-monetary economies.

This is all important, dare I say crucial work right now. The Age of Capitalist Empire is fast spinning out of control, with new crises appearing more frequently. In the inevitable mega-crash, those who have practiced their self-determination and prepared their economic safety nets, will fare the best.

In addition to harm mitigation, however, we also have economic tools to fight back. Today we’re going to look at those tools, and then consider how that might work for New Zealand’s own plutocracy of business interests behind the current government.

Understanding Economic Resistance

History shows us that economic resistance—through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS)—has been a powerful tool for oppressed groups to challenge the status quo and reclaim agency. These strategies disrupt the economic foundations of the wealthy elite who dominate political and social systems.

Economic resistance is not new. From the Montgomery Bus Boycott that ignited the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., to the international boycott of apartheid South Africa, communities have long understood the power of the dollar. By strategically withholding economic support, resistance movements have hit oppressive systems at their most vulnerable point: their profit margins.

The effectiveness of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions is evident in the fear they provoke among corporations and plutocrats. They understand that the collective power of consumers, investors, and communities can dismantle economic empires. Our choices—where we spend, where we invest, and who we support—shape the world we live in.

The most well known economic resistance movement today has to be the BDS movement against Israel, initiated in 2005, which aims to pressure Israel to comply with international law, end their genocide, deoccupy Palestine and respect Palestinian rights. Its impact has been multifaceted:

According to a UN report, BDS was a key factor behind a 46% drop in foreign direct investment into Israel in 2014 compared to 2013. The World Bank partially attributed a 24% drop in Palestinian imports from Israel to the boycott. Reports by the Israeli government and the Rand Corporation have predicted that BDS could cost the Israeli economy billions of dollars. It has caused Starbucks to close branches and although it is not on the official BDS list, voluntary BDS in Malaysia led to USD 15.1 million over the last six months of 2024. Globally, Starbucks sales have decreased for four consecutive quarters, with a worldwide profit loss of 23% in 2023.

McDonalds is on the official list and took the unusual step of admitting that the BDS movement has delivered a “meaningful hit to business”, having lost over $7billion dollars in revenue.

Standing Rock

The Standing Rock Lakota Dakota Nakota Nation’s resistance campaignagainst the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a poignant example of economic resistance.

Inspired by BDS strategies, the Standing Rock campaign launched divestment campaigns targeting banks, insurance agencies and corporations from funding and insuring the DAPL. These efforts led institutions like the City of Seattle to withdraw $3 billion in investments from banks financing the pipeline, with Los Angeles and Philadelphia soon following, showcasing the power of economic pressure in environmental and Indigenous rights advocacy.

Petrobras and Statoil

Here in Aotearoa, iwi and public opposition to oil and gas has resulted in widespread campaigns which have included procedural resistance (eg opposing and holding up every single consent application, derailing every public gathering, and disrupting every single step of the process possible – as our Apanui relations call it – the “mosquito strategy”), and approach which blew out project costs and contributed to the worst reported loss for 13 years for Petrobras. Eventually both Petrobras and Statoil handed back their exploration permits to opt for less troublesome sites.  

It’s important to note that the New Zealand government makes significant money just out of the exploration permit process, charging per square kilometer, and while this government has lifted the offshore drilling ban, courting oil and gas back, both the Green Party and Te Paati Māori have recently pledged to reinstating the ban and placing every barrier possible in front of corporations both from the current opposition benches and in any potential future government.

Economic Resistance to the Current New Zealand Government

As has been noted, numerous times, New Zealand is now thoroughly in the grasp of the global far-right. Corporate interests both here and overseas bankrolled the most far-right government in living history, and their orders were clear: remove the barriers to extraction, and entrench neoliberal, corporate power. Their pup David Seymour has wasted no time, and the coalition agreement upon which this government was formed, was pretty much a shopping list of deregulation.

It bears restating: donors do not just donate money then sit back and let parties do what they want. Donations come with access. They come with private meetings, dinner parties, and MPs on quickdial who will pick up the phone.

So who are the corporations that are behind this government? Well thankfully this information is very easy to find out. The New Zealand elections site lists the donors for each political party.

And what can these sheets tell us about the major donors to this government. Well we can look at that a number of ways, but probably the simplest way is to look at who has donated the most.  Unsurprisingly, the top of that list are associated to each other, and the Atlas Network. Property developers dominate the top 10 list, including separated wife of property developer Alan Gibbs, Dame Jenny Gibbs. The Gibbs family (who include chair of the Atlas Network Debbi Gibbs) have long been ACT supporters and donors. Alan Gibbs is a major stakeholder in the Auckland Viaduct, along with Mark Wyborn and Trevor Farmer, who also feature highly on the list.

The Huljich family feature quite highly as well, donating $100k each to National and ACT.

We have Nick Mowbray, owner of Zuru Toys, donating $150k to ACT alone. Seeing children as a profit source might be why he’s ok with how David Seymour has downgraded school lunches:

Nick is also quite vocal about his opposition to wealth tax and welfare expenditure, but of course it’s the healthy school lunch advocates who are whiny losers with their hands out.

The top two donors though, are of particular interest.

The largest single party donor is Warren Lewis, who donated $500k to the National Party. Warren is in the building solutions company, owning FMI building innovations, who produce materials (glass and prefab) and accessories for the building industry.

The largest cross-party donor for this coalition is billionaire Graeme Hart. Graeme owns Walter and Wild, a holding company specialising in New Zealand food brands including Alfa One, Aunties, Aunt Betty’s, Greggs, Hansells, Hubbards, I Love, Thriftee, Teza, F. Whitlock & Sons and Vitafresh.

Now, of course, given that Graeme Hart has underwritten the coalition of chaos you could understand not wanting to chow down on a bowl of Hubbards muesli, and I certainly don’t want to give them even one penny – but an impactful consumer boycott strategy needs to be coordinated, strategic and at scale in order to be effective. Certainly a coordinated boycott movement deserves a discussion – but let’s not forget the power of the Māori economy. By that, I don’t mean the Māori economy of every day workers – I mean the Māori corporate economy. Graeme Hart also owns Carter Holt Harvey, and it’s subsidiaries Carters Building Supplies, Futurebuild, Shadowclad, Ecoply, Laserframe, Pinex, and Handiply. Iwi holdings companies, and corporations are major players in the New Zealand economy, and in particular, in the housing and building sectors. The Māori economy is estimated to be in the region of $70billionNZD, and is growing faster than the New Zealand economy. While construction growth in New Zealand has slowed since mid-2022 due to cost pressures and economic constraints – the share of Māori owned construction businesses, along with Māori housing initiatives and projects, have increased.

Arguably the most powerful economic message we could send, may well be through our hapū, to our iwi corporates, to step up and protect Te Tiriti through our economic portfolios and partnerships. It simply wasn’t good enough that the Māori corporate sector stood by and conducted business as usual while working class Māori, up and down the nation, marched in support of te Tiriti. Maybe its time our own corporates stop hiding in the shadows, picked up the damn teatowel, and got with the kaupapa.

Economic resistance has two faces, preparing anti-capitalist safety nets for your community with alternative economies, and consciously using your dollar to strike back at the system. This week (28Feb) another wave will take place…

and as Steven King puts it:

The plutocrats do not care about tikanga. They don’t even care about fairness or democracy. They don’t care about the non-wealthy and frankly we should not care for the plutocrats either. But if you want to send them a message, then that is the language they understand.