Weaponising Fairness

Misuse + Misinform = Divide by Discourse

Clicking through to ACT’s socials last week felt like the natural conclusion to an intense few days immersed in 'those' conversations—the kind that test my mantra: "expect and accept non-closure." Internal frustration bubbled as I wrestled to temper my response, especially when, three-quarters into the discussion, it was revealed that the person genuinely believed equity and equality were the same thing.

While the satisfaction of staying in the kōrero balanced my frustration (albeit unequally), the echoes of that exchange accompanied me on my walk home, carried into conversations with our comms team, and of course into the dinnertime chats. Later that night I resolved to head to the source of the noisy distractions and headed to the ACT Facebook Page. 

As I arrived at the source of the cacophony, I didn't even have to scroll once before finding this:

Growing up, my parents encouraged debates and discussions, so I was engaged with politics from a young age; dissecting political language and rhetoric with a critical lens. It's clear that the messaging from the ACT Party and leader David Seymour is not an original approach. As Tim Murphy, co-editor of Newsroom NZ noted in a recent episode of Raw Politics, Seymour's efforts are hitching a lift on the "tide that rises a little higher each time". 

In 2004, Don Brash, then leader of the National Party, delivered his infamous Orewa speech, a watershed moment in New Zealand’s race relations debate. Brash championed “one rule for all,” criticising what he described as “special privileges” for Māori and calling for the end of affirmative action policies. The current coalition government is using similar rhetoric, with NACT swiftly repealing a swathe of policies labeled as “race-based", justifying these actions as efforts to “promote equality for all New Zealanders.”

This strategy co-opts and weaponises the language of social justice - not to dismantle inequity - but to perpetuate colonial narratives, consolidate power, and manipulate public opinion. It’s a tactic that relies on misrepresentation and misinformation to frame equity as an unfair advantage, creating division under the guise of "fairness".

In this article, we'll explore the tactic of discursive appropriation in the context of our current political landscape. 

What is Discursive Appropriation?

Discursive appropriation happens when those in positions of power adopt the language of marginalised groups, stripping it of its original intent in order to serve their agenda. In the context of our current times this is showing up through the co-option of terms like “fairness” and “equality”; misrepresenting meaning in order to uphold the colonial status quo.

David Seymour’s rhetoric around the Treaty Principles Bill exemplifies this. By framing Te Tiriti as promising “equality before the law,” Seymour is appropriating the language of fairness and justice – values deeply rooted in Te Tiriti – to undermine its actual purpose: to uphold tino rangatiratanga for Tangata Whenua and ensure equitable outcomes for all.

Seymour’s narrative is compelling to those who lack education about Te Tiriti and our shared history. His recent claim that opponents of the Bill are spreading “misinformation” flips the script, positioning himself as the rational, informed actor. But the misinformation lies in his interpretation of Te Tiriti itself.

Seymour knows well and good that this reframing appeals to those unfamiliar with Te Tiriti, offering a simplified narrative that feels “fair” but in actuality is far from it. 

Weaponising Fairness

Seymour's claim that the Bill is about treating everyone equally under the law conveniently ignores the structural inequities faced by Māori as a result of colonisation, and attempts to hide, ignore, and deny Te Tiriti o Waitangi across decades of settler-silencing. 

Te Tiriti o Waitangi - particularly Article 3 - is grounded in the principle of equitable and fair treatment.

However, centuries of wilful ignorance and inadequate redress have perpetuated the very inequities Te Tiriti sought to protect Tangata Whenua from. And the reality is that the longer we are distracted by debates that shift the focus from equity to equality, we get further away from any kind of imagined nirvana of equality.

This stifles the critical learning and conversations our country so desperately needs, and perpetuates the myth that equitable practice is  preferential treatment for Māori - and therefore inherently unfair. 

Seymour’s language is carefully crafted to resonate with those who haven’t yet learned about Te Tiriti or Aotearoa history of colonisation. It creates a false dichotomy: either support ACT’s vision of “equality” or risk being cast as divisive. 

For those without the learning or a grasp on the context, the vision of equality feels reasonable and fair. But without understanding the systemic barriers Māori face - barriers created and reinforced by colonisation - this vision of equality is nothing more than an empty promise. Instead of bringing us together, it drives us further apart.

In amongst all the noise, rather than tackling the learning and having meaningful and respectful discussions to scaffold a collective understanding of our history, this tactic seeks keep the focus in a reactive space of distorted interpretations and debates rooted in misinformation.

Equality as a distraction

In reframing tino rangatiratanga as incompatible with “equality" Seymour is attempting to erase Māori sovereignty and embolden the Crown to sidestep their Te Tiriti obligations. This has far-reaching consequences for all of us here in Aotearoa.

This use of discursive manipulation not only perpetuates misinformation but also detracts from addressing the politics - and policies - that could make a genuine difference for all New Zealanders.

ACT appears increasingly distracted too. The latest poll revealed a significant drop in Seymour's popularity - a shift that’s unlikely to stem from a failure to develop policies that could empower hapū and iwi through the devolution of power and resources. However, it does suggest that people might be growing tired of the rhetoric and looking for something more substantive than endless, circular debates that will only widen disparities and deepen division.