The Politics of the Pūteketeke

What does the campaign for a growling, barking, vomiting bird have to do with politics in Aotearoa New Zealand?

If you’re anything like me, much of what becomes stuff-worthy news usually appears on a social feed first, sometimes in the form of a reel or clip. But the contentions about the Bird of the Century campaign had mostly passed me by until a friend mentioned that American-English comedian and talk show host John Oliver had unofficially declared himself the official campaign manager for the unlikely, unusual-looking creature, as well as being the primary donor for said campaign. Eerily, and adding to my suspicions about our phones listening to our chats, the next time I went on Instagram, there he was, dressed as a puking pūteketeke on the Tonight Show.

John Oliver - dressed as the Pūteketeke, source: https://time.com/6334791/new-zealand-bird-john-oliver-puteketeke/

Fast track to the vote counting (including a few extra days required to count the special votes), I’m walking on a bush track in the early morning with my dog. With not a pūteketeke in sight but many piwaiwaka in range, I heard the announcement via RNZ Morning Report that yes indeed, the pūteketeke had taken out the title of Bird of the Century. It was expected and anticlimactic, which felt similar to our recent election result.

Conversations followed around Oliver’s motivation for this campaign. And the answers I found, such as his love for our country and that he thought it was funny, did not do enough to soothe my socio-political suspicion that there was more to it than simply love or humour. It felt so… akin to something so recent, something experienced by ‘Kiwis’ of the human kind.

Regardless of whether John Oliver really did plan this crowning of the pūteketeke to deliver an albeit humourous example about the fragility of our democracy when dollars are involved, the parallels between our recent election and the politics of the pūteketeke were alive in my imagination, a perfectly appropriate analogy for our imperfect policies around campaigning, candidates, and cash.

In August 2023, Gerard Otto posted some figures that spoke to the highly irritating excess of pink billboards from Whakatū to Wairau, from Waimeha to Mohua. He stated: "About $12 million has been invested by the most wealthy in winning this election for National and Act - and that means - funding contact centre operatives on the phones ringing you up and asking for your vote; it means an epidemic of billboards, polluting the country visibly; it means direct mail leaflets and pamphlets; it means dirty money unseen paying for favours; it means lunches, events, makeovers - Black Mercedes ...and it means influence in the highest parts of media and industry.”

I was grumpy at the obvious contradictions: how completely appropriate it is for the well-resourced right to flex their money muscles to influence democracy, compared with any attempt by Tangata Whenua and allies to employ equitable practice or affirmative action escalating beyond ‘undemocratic’ to ‘racially divisive’ at pace.

How is it that on one (right) hand, these people with pūtea can be emphatic that co-governance (power-sharing) is undemocratic, yet there is nothing undemocratic at all that the same (right) hand uses hoarded stores of power in the form of millions and millions of dollars to influence an election?

The final result for the Bird of the Century led the pūteketeke to a win with a lead of nearly 280,000 over reliable (and predicted) favourite brown kiwi. And right on cue, Te Pāti Māori posted this:

Te Pāti Māori Facebook Page, 16 November 2023.

The politics of the pūteketeke had come home to roost. Oliver’s campaign is a direct analogy that demonstrates how dollars influence democracy. In the above image, we can see that National MPs over 10x Te Pāti Māori in donations per seat, NZF were close to that, and Act? Well I can’t tell you because I’m terrible at Maths, but just take in this comparison: under $20k per seat for TPM, compared with nearly half a million bucks per seat for Act.

Now I have nothing at ALL against John Oliver, or the pūteketeke, but it is clear that the campaign for the pūteketeke to be crowned bird of the century consisted of a big player with a platform, power, and pūtea. The pūteketeke was on billboards in Aotearoa, France, Japan, India, and the US, even taking flight in Brazil via a large campaign banner on the back of a plane. And it worked for the pūteketeke, who, along with its plumage, now has a bird of the century crown atop its head.

Now it could just be me, but it feels like John Oliver just highlighted something about our recent elections—how money can walk and talk in democracy. Is the pūteketeke really the bird of the century? The votes say yes, but some of the commentary about the process suggests otherwise.

And beyond the politics of the pūteketeke, does the influence of power, platforms, and pūtea in democratic processes make these processes any less democratic?

At least in our political democracy, we have just 3 years for the 3-man band I will fondly call NAF, while the pūteketeke will remain our national bird of the century until the next round in 2123.