More than 42,000 New Zealanders rallied outside Parliament on Tuesday to demonstrate their opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill and other policies perceived as being anti-Māori.
That makes it the largest protest at Parliament in New Zealand history and one of the biggest anywhere in the country ever.
Onlookers gathered on balconies and at windows to watch a river of red Tino Rangatiratanga flags completely flood the forecourt, steps, and surrounding streets.
It was a big protest all over a bill that won’t even pass its second reading.
Act Party Leader David Seymour introduced his Treaty Principles Bill last Thursday and it was voted through to a select committee process by reluctant National and NZ First MPs.
The Justice Select Committee opened for submissions on Tuesday and hopes to finish its hearings by the end of February, after which the Bill be voted down at its second reading.
However, the record-breaking protest turnout wasn’t just because of the Treaty Principles Bill.
Shane Jones, an NZ First MP and senior minister, said there was an anxiety among Māori that their identity was “being imperiled” by the coalition Government and some of its allies.
“We've got to work very hard to assure them that, [firstly] identity is not only a personal responsibility, but also we're not doing anything to invalidate Māori identity,” he said.
Anti-Māori accusations
While he’s right that a majority of Parliament want to see Māori thrive, the Coalition formed around a long list of policies which were targeted at things they care about.
Abolishing the devolved health authority, forcing councils to hold votes on Māori wards, and requiring public services to use less Te Reo are just three examples, but the list goes on.
Māori are growing as a proportion of the population and the financial reparations from Treaty settlements have been bolstering their economic and political power.
Some suspect NZ’s white majority feels threatened by the increasing status of Māori and has elected the Coalition government partly in the hopes it will slow that progress.
This would be an unfair assessment of most voters and politicians, but there is a cohort of voters who believed a “Māori elite” was being handed the keys to the country — and wanted a new government to pull the handbrake.
You could see elements of this in the heated debate over co-governance in Three Waters and among the Groundswell protests, which were supposed to be about rural issues.
So, the protests have rallied against the Treaty Principles Bill but are really about protecting the progress made over the past 50-or-so years from a perceived backlash.
Organizers of the protest said the hīkoi, which had traveled from the Far North over the past nine days, would “continue” and various speakers asked the crowd to register for future updates.
Trap, set, & match
But here’s the thing, it may not be about the Bill for Seymour either. His campaign is starting to look more like a trap set for National which threatens to break apart its big tent coalition.
The party was created in 1936 as an amalgamation between the conservative and liberal parties of the time, and it still has two factions of centrist and right-wing MPs and voters.
Centrists are aghast at National’s tolerance of the Treaty Principles Bill, while those on the right are furious it won’t be voted into law.
Paul Goldsmith was put under pressure in a Newstalk ZB interview on Monday night, admitting there was a “wide variety” of responses to his explanation of the party’s position.
This is what political scientists call a ‘wedge issue’ and it has the potential to shift conservative voters into the Act Party, leaving National to be a smaller, centrist party.
For what it is worth, MP James Meager did not agree. He said it wasn’t the first time National had taken a position that not everyone in the party agreed with.
“The benefit of being a broadchurch party is that you can have views right across the spectrum, whether that’s liberal, conservative, urban, [rural], town. So, no: I think we’re fine”.
175 Comments
Not to mention a petition that got over 200000 signatures in 24 hours.
As with the auckland fast track protest, the crowd included a good number of white middle class people. This should worry National more.
Then there's Peter's claiming the protest was a waste of time, because the bill won't pass. But this govt of efficiency, cutting waste and regulation, will have a select committee considering it for 6 months?
And improves the quality of decisions whilst accepting the decisions of the taxpayers overides the personal views of politicians. From a democracy viewpont it also gives the taxpayer what they aksed for as in Calipornia were Gavin Newscum was subjected to a recall refernednum which he won resulting in the exodus of Californians leaving and the remaining taxpayer to foot an increasingly larger tax bill - in other words as confusicous famously said be careful you dont get what you asked for or in westerm terms voter regret once they understand the effects of their decision on their Bank balance.
argumentum ad verecundiam attempt with no credibility.
All major parties have previously ignored referenda, sometimes for good reasons
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_New_Zealand
This used to be the job of the media(fourth estate) but once they were captured and bribed by left wing Govts the loss to NZ and its residents is obvious. With luck the Trump/Elon effect in the US will be a benchmark for others with appropriate modification to suit local issues.
Is it time to put it to the vote? While 60% of the voters in the Taxpayers Union-Curia poll said they'd back the proposal if it was put to a referendum, fewer voters said they wanted a referendum in the first place 45%, while 25% opposed a referendum and 30% were unsure. The PM is also not keen on a referendum, telling the Hui the idea was “divisive and not helpful”. He said he would not support it.
The response by Maori this week has been well beyond anything I had expected. You have seen us, so where are you? Where are your marches and protests - show yourselves.
This protest has been peaceful, is as it should be. Make no mistake though, this is a warning shot. So I would expect civil war before a referendum, Maori will not accept it.
There is much deep seated anger. Anger whether justified or unjustified is still anger. You will not calm that anger anymore than address its causes by leading in anger. There are plenty of examples of such leadership historically. Robespierre, Washington, Lenin, Mao Zedong for a start. They all were of course successful but it took a revolution and a bloodbath of civil war and aftermath for the achievement. Some deeper consideration needs to be given by some as to what they are apparently content to wish for.
Whilst I doubt the Hikoi and its leaders reflect a majority Maori view the damage in terms of quiet predudicial opposition is wholly negative and the implied threats of Maori MPs in particular may set the tone that threats are OK until Maori leadership is on the recieving end and then its too late to put the rabbit back in the hat.
How do we have a debate on this without having the real issues drowned out by emotive noise aimed at denying there should be any discussion, and any collaboration hamstrung by entrenched adversarialism? Both are built in to our culture.
Get someone like Sweden in to run the process?
That's exactly what the treaty principles bill says:
Clause 2 provides for the Bill to come into force 6 months after the date on which the official result of a referendum is announced if a majority of electors voting in that referendum support the Bill coming into force.
What this display of democracy is a protest against democray
I'm not sure it makes a substantive difference, as either way it wasn't a democratic vote on a law, but sovereigns of Great Britain and the New Zealander tribes agreeing to a diplomatic treaty.
However, if you genuinely want to know, the two recognised sovereign nations that signed te Tiriti were the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand (who were officially recognised by the British Crown as a national, diplomatic entity) and the British Crown. The other parties were the "separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation", which are more akin to sovereign nations than anything else but weren't officially recognised by European powers.
Hence why it's not just a piece of policy for the Crown to vote on, it's a treaty between parties, and can't rightfully be unilaterally thrown out or changed. It's more or less irrelevant if Parliament (referendum or no) voted to ignore or change the Treaty or it's interpretation, from a justice perspective, unless Māori also agreed to the changes. You can't have just one party in a contract make changes without agreement from the other party.
Judges do this all the time - interpreting contract terms just like they have done with the treaty so a democratic referendum is the way to go as it allows all parties to express thier views and try to persuade others that their view is the correct or appropriate one. If Maori claim that only their interpreatation is correct or acceptable then they tacitly accept that force by legislation or action will follow and unlikely to resolve the underlying issues and eventually compromise by both sides will emerge as the solution.
The principles as set forward in this bill here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/54SCJUST_… are opposed to the contents of the Treaty, though. It would be a referendum on a proposal to have the Crown cease to maintain its responsibilities agreed to in the Treaty, and remove some of the rights granted to Māori under the Treaty.
For example:
The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.
(2)
However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
This is explicitly removing the rights granted to Māori in the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi. Even if the referendum was held and concluded that this is the definition of the principles that the Crown will maintain henceforth, this would still be a gross violation of the Treaty. The Crown must not act unilaterally in redefining or changing any part of the Treaty. It is dishonourable to even propose to do so, hence the outrage and protests and hikoi and so on.
It might be different if all the iwi were consulted and agreed to also work with the Crown to define the principles and clarify anything not current clarified in law, and if the Crown promised to only ratify any definitions and changes if all the iwi also ratified those definitions and changes, but that's not what has been happening so far.
This is the 2nd article
"Article the second
Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of
New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and
undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties
which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire
to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual
Chiefs, yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the
proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between
the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf."
Having difficulty in reconciling your statement "removing the rights granted to Māori in the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi." with what the bill says
1 The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.
2 However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Does this not imply Maori have different rights outside of the 2nd article? I don't feel they should have.
I'm not completely sure I understand your question, but:
The second article in Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the version most chiefs signed) says:
Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu - ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te wenua - ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.
Translated to English:
The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.
So yes, Māori (or actually, not Māori, but the chiefs, and hapu, and Māori who have chieftainship (aka rangatiratanga)) have rights beyond the rights of everyone else, according to te Tiriti.
The Treaty Principles Bill as proposed would remove those rights except for historical treaty settlements.
Now, if you're saying you don't think those extra rights should exist, that's your prerogative, but it isn't something the Crown/Parliament can unilaterally remove. The Crown agreed to te Tiriti, so to remove those rights would be to renege on the contract.
We must be reading different English versions. This is where I obtained an English version.
https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/discover-collections/read-watch-play/maori/t…
"...the crowd included a good number of white middle class people."
150000 protested in 1981 against apartheid in South Africa.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/1981-springbok-tour
The irony is not lost
A referendum is the best way forward. I suspect the (quite obvious) result would shock a few people.
I am all for culture,langauge and heritage etc as long as it is a 'user pays' system. Our taxes pay for the will of the majority . If a niche wants something else.. fine and they are welcome to fund it.
Pretty sure the majority want a working health system in no danger of collapse, police to turn up when you need them, affordable and safe housing, low cost public transport, a ferry service between our islands, not to be gouged by electricity costs, etc.
We will have to wait out this government for any of that though.
Exactly.
But if we are to pay more tax for those things we want it to be spent effectively and carefully.
Labour are a nightmare.. they burnt through a ton of taxpayers money on stuff very few people wanteð..and left us with nothing. I am not a big fan of luxon but at least they know how to budget and spend other people's money with some respect.
There was electoral resistance to the Greens in 2020 that contributed to Labour’s landslide outright majority. But in 2023 there was outright suspicion of the prospect of a Labour/Greens/ TPM coalition which stemmed from the turmoil ongoing within Labour with the potential that a resultant government would arise with a dominant Maori caucus in Labour combining with the similar elements in the Greens and TPM. The electorate emphatically rejected the prospect and given continued uproar and disruptions in parliament in the last year, that attitude by the electorate will not alter in 2026, likely it will harden. It seems that TPM and elements within the Greens and Labour realising that their vote in the house is inconsequential are now intent on tearing down the house.
Aye, that provided a rather stark warning didn’t it. A calculated and devious attempt that undermined the established protocols of parliament and gave a middle finger to democracy itself, and PM Ardern herself. The primary instigator, thankfully was not returned in the 2023 election. You would conclude, not without reason, there’s plenty more of that coming to the boil in the cauldron.
Any increase in rates will be minor compared to the charges for, usage, maintenance and construction by the structure being proposed by the previous government. And the local bodies that have invested and maintained their utilities diligently are now free to carry on with their good work without either interference or interruption.
Well perhaps some of those callers are simply protesting the wilful squandering of the public purse that has been spent on vainglorious vanity projects rather than attending basic services. And at least now local people can still attend their local council and submit their applications and concerns about the local issues that affect them rather than having to futilely try to access a monolithic faceless bureaucratic national body divorced from local knowledge, and at least the same folk, have the ability to vote democratically for or against the policy in which they have local interest. Labour’s three waters was a pig that thankfully never got to fly.
Do you not see the irony? If it is racist, somehow whenever a big company hires (all big companies and even parliament) they give brownie points just for being Maori. I would need to work harder to achieve the same as them. Isn't that being racist? That is why people leave, because other countries offer an even playing field.
If they have so many advantages, how come they are more represented in the lower economic % in all areas. The facts are they are disadvantaged as much as you would be if Japan won the war and brought 40 million Japanese here and you were the minority speaking Japanese and trying to compete in their culture.
When evaluating Medical School for our eldest, Otago (ex-alumni) has Maori quotas plus lower grade average requirements. Universities in QLD are a. More numerous, meaning more options and b. Entry requirements are academic based. I'm not saying that supporting Maori to achieve is a problem; I'm saying as parents we have moved and this gives my children the best advantage.
It's not true that you will "always be a 2nd class citizen for not being Maori", that's just what you think. It's highly unlikely people want to leave because they think that. Maori are negatively represented in so many statistics - non Maori live longer (by around 7 years), less Maori own homes and they earn less. I think when some people see policies that try to even up the disparities they see it as racism, others see it as trying to have a fairer society. There is a future here for everyone in New Zealand that wants one.
I completely agree with equality of opportunity. But 100% disagree with equality of outcome. But just to respond to your comments.
1. Non-Maori live longer - Nothing to do with racism, just biology. Same as women living longer than men is not sexism its just biology.
2. Maori own homes and earn less - have you considered culture? Yes I do acknowledge that we should encourage more Maori to go to uni, study harder etc 100% But the jobs we take on are very different in general. For a fact I know Asian parents think graduating Uni is a given for their children. It is the difference in culture. It's more racist to see less asian representation in corporate culture when they actually work harder and have higher merit.
3. It's no joke the amount of money the govt gives to Iwi, ngati whatua etc. but unfortunately its not working. Just like socialism and universal basic income doesn't work. It makes people more lazy as they don't need to work hard to satisfy their needs.
We should consider other more effective ways to even up the disparities so that it benefits the whole country instead of giving out handouts.
Thanks for your response. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know about the biology effect if any, but racism does play a part in Maori living shorter lives. For example, it's been documented that fewer Maori get sent for diagnostic tests so that will impact on how long they live as they may be diagnosed too late. As far as jobs taken on as being different, I will draw on my own experience growing up in rural and small town NZ. Maori kids parents were more likely to be employed as shearers, rouseys, freezing workers and in blue collar jobs, that's the way it was. While the kids of European descent had parents who generally owned the farms, the businesses and more often than not had the white collar jobs. So the kids of European descent had a better chance of following in their parents foot steps and more money to do it. There will be a lot of farms in NZ that were once Maori land and the Maori could have been farm owners but there were no Maori farm owners in the areas my family lived. I agree a lot of money gets given to Iwi and I'm all for Iwi businesses paying tax like any other business. How do you know a UBI doesn't work? I like the idea of a UBI but haven't delved too much into that.
A big influencer on health outcomes is health behaviours and beliefs.
You would expect different cultures to behave differently to others. Maori, Asian (several groups) european,(several groups) pacific etc etc. All different in what they are interested in, what their priorities are, and what they will do about it. So big differences in health outcomes.
Strangely this is not to be mentioned even when we are being urged to recognise different cultures.
Knowing the right health behaviours and having the right beliefs though can be overwhelmed by stress .... more Maori incarcerations, Maori living shorter lives, and Maori predominantly working in more physical jobs with lower remuneration whilst still having bigger families?
Hi 26@Main - fair points mate. I'd love to see Maori prosper and thrive, which is why it's important to look at the situation without malice. Scarcity of resources and Maori preferred intake simply means decisions need to made. I'm grateful Australia let's all NZers access. Plenty of high achiever Maori in QLD.
I think the most interesting yet unremarked upon turn of events in the whole thing is that Willie Jackson very suddenly cares about the basic principles of democracy, which didn't seem to matter so much when he was a Minister in the previous government and happy to suggest they should be flexible to suit his own political agenda.
Goose, meet gander.
Why are so many New Zealanders getting so angst over the Treaty? Have we not got bigger fish to fry. A few current other issues come to mind. Access to health care. High food costs. Poor infrastructure. Housing issues. The list goes on. World wide we have politicians like Seymour causing huge problems and distractions. The common denominator. Many are short like him.
they are all issues which politically motivated people use a race based argument to push, but in reality affect everyone of middle income or less.
Access to health care is a major that I am somewhat familiar with. Accessibility is an international standard and is often defined by wealth. Maori are a large cohort in the numbers impacted, but it is defined more by wealth. Population dispersion is also a factor that makes it difficult to make happen when wealth is a factor. People living remotely often do not have the wealth to easily access healthcare which is based in towns and cities. No easy solution for under funded DHBs.
I think you might find the poor pakeha (which I'm guessing you ain't) are just as in need (and more numerous) than poor Maori.
All peoples need some help here, however I think you would be pretty p##d off if you were poor and got continually bumped down the health queue, taking a second seat based on race alone.
Middle class non Maori are mostly not affected, so find it easy to take the moral high ground.
If you were to draw a bell curve for Maori and non Maori health status, the Maori one is conclusively shifted to the more deprived end vs the NZ European one.
"In every census since the inception of NZDep in 1991, over 40% of the Māori population have been living in the two most deprived deciles, compared to less than 15% for NZ Europeans (see Table 2). In 2013, over a quarter of the NZ European population lived in the two least deprived geographic deciles, compared to 7% of Māori." NZMJ Nov 2022.pdf (auckland.ac.nz)
There are of course valid critiques at the overlaps which one can take account of. However, I've yet to see decisions which have been made where there isn't a genuine need.
The reality of how decisions are made is not as simple as your argument purports rastus
And don't get me started on this government removing people in need from all kinds of waitlists with no rhyme, reason or notice.
This was a response to rastus' comment - why don't you ask rastus to avoid conflation first buyandhodl?
And while you're at it, can you please explain what you mean by "political and legal rights"?
One could presume that legal rights are means to outcomes-as-ends. You're correct that they're not the same thing, but there is a causative relationship there which for many becomes justification for the means to be used in particular ways.
There are many who ask questions like "is the disparity in outcomes is okay?" or "are the public institutions and legal statutes set up by and in the name of the Crown holding up their end of the Te Tiriti and Treaty bargains?"
Getting away from semantics for a second, the proposed legislation is a wolf-whistle strawman in which the proposed principles don't actually reflect the Te Tiriti or Treaty documents.
So what is the Bill's real purpose?
The bills real purpose is to ensure a clear representative democracy, without racial division in society. That will address equality, but not equity.
But you ask an interesting question around outcomes without mentioning a problematic aspect. Outcomes are most often the result of choices. Generally no one is disadvantaged in education in NZ or health care (I have another comment on this in the thread so please see that) if one is to look just to the public systems. But choices and attitudes can lead to significant disparities in outcomes. How do you address that - remove peoples right to choose?
I'm not convinced by any of the first paragraph
With regards to choice, the magnitude of influence on outcomes in ascending order are: an individual's single choice (or lack thereof), the context in which the individual makes the choice (including the consequences of choices), the overarching social legal / mindset / power dynamics, and the overarching institutional structures within which choices are made.
There are outlier people who by chance, exposure, connections, relationships and tenacity have exceptional outcomes. Most people don't know they can influence their luck.
Multiply that by millions of people and all the choices they've made themselves or across their lifetimes, and you get a bell curve with outliers.
Some population groups' bell curves have better outcomes, some worse.
I don't have all the answers, but we do need to sit with and discuss these things a bit more than a cursory "look Party Funders, I wrote a Bill" or presume that something this simple will ensure a democracy without racial division in society
"I don't have all the answers, but we do need to sit with and discuss these things...." If you pay attention to what David Seymour has said, that is exactly what he is trying to achieve. The noise is because a very vocal but not proportionally large group is trying to not have the conversation. they are trying to shut it down, hard. In part because if the conversation is had, a number of people will understand that their political platform that promotes race based politics will be removed. If you listen to a lot of their rhetoric you will come to understand that they really don't want effective solutions to Maori inequity. Because to achieve them, would also remove their political platform and access to privilege and power. David Seymour is trying to change that.
Interestingly Shane Jones has made some challenging comments on the topic too. He has talked about Maori attitudes being the real cause of their problems.
Just recently was just a report that showed that all the scholarships helped get the Maori equality in Otago University but had no effect on helping poor Maori, that is because rich Maori just take those position leaving the poor in the same position as they always have been. That is the problem with focusing on race not on need.
I personally think that the focus on scholarships is wrong to by the time a student has reached university level its probably too late they are 12 years behind. We need to put in much more measures probably from birth, and based on need, why is a child that is born into poverty is Maori any more deserving than one that is not?
This is a legit consideration.
However, why would it be in the interests of Act Party funders and voters to demolish supporting measures for Maori? Oh that's right, because Maori are often playing a role as guardians of the commons that is supported by resource management law, and it would be in Act Party funders' financial interests to bypass that
Focus on wealth/income/need, not race. This has always been and will always be true. Rangatira signed the Treaty; but their Maori slaves did not. My ancestors came here not to subjugate Maori, but as refugees from potato famine and land clearances. We should aspire to eliminate racism properly understood, not this strange thing it's becoming where we ignore individual circumstances in favour of looking at someone's skin pigment. The Otago medical school placements are a sad indictment on the university and should be scrapped. I don't care what colour skin a doctor has, I want to know the doctor is going to correctly diagnose patients.
Did any of the issues listed by the OP start with or are caused by the current government? It's up to you if think the media is responsible but they do keep telling us how we can fix these issues and nothing works. This stupidity with the treaty is something they are not responsible for and it's easy to make content on without continuously undermining your credibility.
If you want to an arsehole please read the relevant comments first and think if you response is coherent and not assume too much. Apologies for my bad grammar.
While there are many cynical and self-serving perspectives on this, personally I find that all of the commentary and thinking appears far too shallow. Multiple 'Why' questions need to be asked to get to true causes of the angst felt by not just Maori, but many others in NZ.
I have argued before that the true root cause lies in the consequences of socio-economic policies put in place by decades of governments. There is an overarching attitude apparent at the higher levels of NZ, especially in government that the majority of people in NZ cannot be trust and don't deserve decent wages and living standards. Poor understanding of consequences of economic policies has a big impact. Rogernomics, NZ's version of the 'Free Market' economic policies are a good example, which demonstrates even politicians lack an understanding of the role of government in running the country. Holding back wage growth denies people decent living standards, and the power to make choices which ultimately and inevitably also leads to more political activism. The type of activism we witnessed yesterday is not the sort I refer to here. yesterday was more the expression of frustration from being denied, and is defined in the Les Miserables song "Can you hear the people sing...." Yesterday that song was being played very loudly in NZ, but I fear that Brian Easton is correct in that the politicians are not just not listening, but much worse, they are really not thinking and asking WHY.
Agree. NZ has fundamental issues which result in European children leaving to work overseas and Maori kids staying here adding to the social issues.
Unfortunately the race issues gather more clicks and we won’t therefore protest as one people for a better country.
I agree. I wasn’t thinking of those goi g to Oz, more Europe.
It’s hilarious that you try to have a conversation that refers to Maori and get labelled a racist straight off the bat. You should be ashamed. Racism is not tolerate in my house so you are hunting the wrong person.
Very Trump moment from Seymour on News last night, when he claimed twice as many turned out to protest over Dunedin hospital. Very Alternate Facts.
We'll end up with ACT and Greens as the major parties, if not in name policy.
ACT definitely wants Nationals conservative base. Declining Demographics will make ACT more extreme.
NZ needs to take care.
Easy to understand. He would have to be the most vilified character in NZ at the moment, rightly or wrongly, and no matter how robust he might consider himself to be, that cannot be easy, and he has an opportunity to publicly minimise the angst against him.
Like all things in politics this too shall pass, but whether NZ has the maturity and the people sufficient respect in each other to openly discuss this subject fairly is yet to be seen. So far I doubt it.
Not just right leaning. Any liberal party has this at it's core. It's just that the left in NZ has become ethno-nationalist, which is ironic, given the history of the left, is to chip away at ethno-nationalism and move towards universal suffrage and egalitarianism. In NZ it's upside-down.
Equity is just equality of outcomes, not matter how hard you try no matter what you do its clearly not your fault so we need to correct it. If you think about it nothing is actually anybody's fault we are just a product of our inputs, but it isn't a useful way to live, because you get the attitude of a victim.
The problem is that nobody actually wants either. Parents spend money on their child's education, help them get into a house precisely because they want to bestow an advantage to their children. What I want is equality in laws because that is relatively easy, every one has the same right under the law, I also want to remove the extremes of inequality so every child has a reasonable (not equal) possibility of success in this world, help them who are willing to put the effort into getting educated get educated.
If protagonists of equality actually believed it they would send their money to the poor until they where equal. I don't see that happening on any significant scale.
Personally I’m neutral on the bill - but there are some societal dynamics playing out here, that we have seen with Brexit and the rise of Trump.
Whilst one side is taking to the streets to protest, there is silence from the rest of the country. Well public silence, in the privacy of my backyard and dining room, I’m hearing the other side of the debate).
Brexit and Trumpism came as a surprise because the silent majority voted in a way that surprised- mainly because it was the only way for their voices to be heard.
We might not enjoy the debate that comes - but Seymour is right if we don’t want a divided country the debate is important - otherwise it leaves things to fester with those who feel silenced and we might not as a society like the future outcomes.
Agreed. I suspect that if a referendum were held tomorrow the 'yes' side (supporting the Bill) would win handily.
Yes it was a big protest (nice to see that protesting on parliament's lawn is all good now!) and a 200k petition is a decent number - and it's interesting to see all the same friends/family who were really vocal about Palestine on social media, and then about the US elections, now they've got a new thing to post about until it's all forgotten - but as you allude to this is a 'silent majority' issue ... or at least would be if it were allowed to go to a vote.
Realistically, who's going to do a counter protest, or a counter petition or whatever - you'd just paint a target on your back, particularly if you work in a job where adherence to the Treaty is effectively a requirement (e.g. most public service jobs). You'll just bite your tongue and hold out for an opportunity to vote, as we saw with Trump and as we saw with Brexit.
That isn't a reflection of my personal position - I'm fairly neutral on it as well ... my only bottom line is I do think for the future stability of NZ we have to have an articulated and discussed-in-advance perspective on what society looks like in the context of the Treaty (as opposed to the perceived status quo which is academics, lawyers, politicians etc always torturing it to justify various changes). But I'm not sure if the Bill as it stands really achieves that.
At the end of the day, even having a government come along and say 'honouring the Treaty means there is no end to this process' but being up front about it would be an improvement on the status quo.
How would you feel if, after signing an employment contract agreeing to such-and-such pay and benefits for certain responsibilities, your boss unilaterally decided to pay you less without consulting you or getting your agreement?
The treaty is between two parties: the Crown, and Māori. The Crown can't (or shouldn't) unilaterally change the terms without Māori agreeing to the changes. New Zealand has quite different circumstances in our founding to many other Western democracies, and it would be gross injustice for the Crown to overturn te Tiriti without Māori also agreeing to new terms.
The Treaty Principles Bill is operating on false assumptions that we are a simple democracy. We're a country which was founded with two systems of government for two peoples simultaneously, with some aspects of democracy specifically for the Crown system of government.
Do you fight against border control, citizenship, residency laws and so on? All of those are laws which distinguish between those who are New Zealanders and those who are not, and grant rights to New Zealanders above the rights we grant to everyone else. They are (not in a negative way) discriminatory, placing the people of New Zealand above others.
Those campaigning want to be exempt from the general laws but do not have a proposal as to how that could work or how we can operate civilly as to distinct populace.
Without any proposal to review, I would guess Māori want what the blacks in South Africa. To take the land back with zero payment. If they had the numbers Maori would have started already.
In reality they don’t have the numbers for a democratic society and they know it, that’s why they don’t want the bill to get a traction.
Maori complain about how bad the current system is but I think they will look back and wonder if putting such radicals in Parliment led to a worse outcome.
That's the problem, radicals won't actually come up with any sensible solutions for the present, and the future, so backward looking. The worlds going to advance at a rapid rate, and MOST of them don't give a rats about little old NZ. There was a reason Act and National and NZ first got the numbers as the average NZer was sick of this behaviour, and the more they go down this path the less change they will make up any ground.
I think if TMP and the greens were'nt so backward looking and actually came up with sensible solutions of how the country can actually move forward as One and compete and prosper in the modern world (in which we must compete to be able to pay for any sort of infrastructure, welfare, healthcare etc) then they may get more buy in from mainstream NZers'. Trying to drive forward by looking in the rear vision mirrors does not go down well with hard working kiwis. If they want to drive NZ even further down the rankings and we end up as a real 3rd world country then they better be prepared for the consequences, no welfare, limited healthcare, no subsidies etc etc..there are plenty of examples of these countries around the world, and no NZ is not at that level YET.
Here is the point FCM, this is much bigger than TPM who I don't support or vote for. They only get around 5% of the vote, so there are another 10% to 15% of us out there.
This is the real story, how Maoridom have been united by ACT and this bill should never have seen the light of day. Luxon will rue the day he did a deal with the devil for power.
It's times like these I wish the media stopped being lazy with the word liberal as shorthand for progressives. Because at moments precisely like this you end up getting it ass-backwards as a result. Liberalism is a belief system that at it's core has:
- equality and individual liberty,
- private property and individual rights
- limited constitutional government
- pluralism, tolerance, autonomy, bodily integrity, and consent.
If this sounds jarringly close to libertarianism, it's meant to be. Liberals would believe that universal, egalitarian democracy is the right way to run the state. Liberals would be aghast at the partnership concept of the treaty as it conflicts with the key tenet of liberalism, being equality before the law, courts, and in the ballot box.
So if anyone is being split off the national party, it's the liberals. The progressives and conservatives, who perhaps are more pragmatic than principled, will stay in the national party.
"Some suspect NZ’s white majority feels threatened by the increasing status of Māori and has elected the Coalition government partly in the hopes it will slow that progress."
No, most don't. As always, this a confrontation between the extremes of the political spectrum. The left wing MSM try to amplify the issue in favor of the Left, while ACT tries to drag National into their arena.
Most ordinary NZers have more important things they're concerned about. 200K signatures is hardly representative of the majority.
Doesn't seem the protestors were interested in listening.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/act-party-leader-david-seymour-booed-by-p…
The best way would have been with a series of hui, via each major tribe, over a long period of consultation. That's the customary way to approach getting a conversation going. Listening first, then working with them to come up with a bill which encompassed their viewpoints. Then it would have been a conversation.
Did he even attempt it?
In this instance standing on Parliament grounds with your flags and signs is as much a waste of time as the bill itself. There is a list of large party donations for 2023 available. https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/d…
This could be researched and all of the associated businesses, brands, products and services offered by the donors to the party to whose policies you oppose can be made available via multiple channels to those who you believe support your cause. Then people can choose how and where they spend their money. These people should not be targeted personally. But their business interests are fair game in terms of boycotts and a little peaceful protesting.
If you can catch about 100 red fire ants that live in the southwestern desert and also about 100 of those large black ants that live there and drop them in the same jar, not much will happen– until you shake the jar vigorously and dump them out on the ground. The red ants will attack the black ants and the black ants will attack the red ants and they’ll devastate each other. The thing is, the red ants think the enemy is the black ants and the black ants think the enemy is the red ants and all those ants put together never do figure out that the real enemy is the guy who shook the jar.
Who is Seymour shaking the jar on behalf of? Act Party donors stand to benefit while everyone else argues over the scraps falling from the of the table of the trickle down economics fallacy
https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/d…
There are over 5 million New Zealanders, I think if this goes to vote, you will be surprised at the outcome.
Many people want equal treatment and no more racial division.
We are all New Zealanders, so it does not matter what race you are, we should all be equal under the law !
I want a vote !
I will not be surprised at the outcome of the vote, I already know which way its going to go. The problem is National are just too scared to even put it out there for a vote at the risk of both looking racist and the strong possibility of civil unrest and outright violence already stated right here from Māori.
I wholeheartedly support the bill.
I’d like a NZ where access to University courses isn’t impacted by race eg MAPAS at Medical School.
I’d like Te Whatu Ora to offer scholarships to those in genuine need, not just Maori (even if the parents are professional and the child attended a private school).
I’d like Westpac to face criticism for offering Maori (only) scholarships for business studies.
I’d like the Government to stop giving money to support Iwi housing initiatives (not acccesible to a solo mother of Indian descent).
I’d like an end to Maori electoral seats. Stand on your own merits.
I’d like access to funded medicines to be needs based and not more accessible purely due to being Maori eg dulaglutide rosuvastatin empagliflozin.
And I sure as heck don’t want to hear another academic tell health care professionals that we are racist (I guess the 40% of foreign trained Drs are ok with all races with one exception). Ref CSANZ 2024.
Looking forward to all the angry old landlords supporting tenants deciding they can change the tenancy contract and rewrite the principles upon which the contract was based.
Guys you can do whatever you want to your landlord's house. He has no more right over the house than you, we are all equal. Take in your pets, change up whatever you like. Contracts don't apply anymore.
David Seymour pointed out that more people protested against the decision to reduce the size of Dunedin Hospital. He’s started posting videos of the press questioning him about the treaty principles bill on YouTube. Quite entertaining, shows how stupid the press all are, and this claim was based on press reports at the time, not the imagined numbers afterwards.
Completely biased reporting. You can see why some people who believe mainstream media might form the opinions that they do.
Having Maori ancestry bestows the right to be racially classified as a Maori and therefore claim Maori rights. The vast majority of Maori have more non-Maori blood than Maori. Yet this twist of ancestral fate (luck?) bestows all of them with the claim of separate additional rights over non-Maori because of remote ancestral links back to the TOW. Those New Zealanders, who through no actions of their own have no Maori ancestry, have less rights. That’s the current law.
Now that that Maori party fund raiser is all over. Remember the ongoing Police investigation,SFO, Electoral Commission, Statistics NZ and pretty much every Crown Agency or Government department (12) investigation(s) is still ongoing. So that will all cost megabucks!
Fact check Takere….your 1st Principle is incorrect. The Treaty did not include any principle concerning non-Maori New Zealanders whatsoever. The Treaty was an agreement solely between the Crown (Queen Victoria) and Maori Chiefs. The Treaty bestowed no rights or conditions on non-Maori New Zealanders.
I trust any response from you will be factual and honorable.
Takere…what you are saying does not agree with either the english or maori versions of Treaty. Yes I agree that the some of settlers were as you say …up to no good. And yes I agree that Maori wanted to keep NZ to themselves. However Maori were unable to defend themselves against the settlers coming not only from the UK, but also from France, Germany, Russia, China and the US. Maori simply did not have the technology or the numbers to stop the invasion. For example Maori did not have guns, the wheel, steel or any metals, written language, horses, manufactured clothing, ovens, musical instruments, warships or well trained and equipped army’s. Conquest by force has happened on earth since humans have been here. In fact you would agree I am sure that Maori and Polynesians carried out conquests as well. This happened outside of and within NZ and is undisputed…Iwi fighting other iwi for land and possessions. The strongest win.
The Chiefs knew this and realised that their best option to survive the conquest was to sign a Treaty with the British as they worked out that the British were the strongest and best ally. That proved to be correct as the English took control and that kept the other invaders out.
I fear by your comments that you are being told the now fashionable alternate and incorrect story. It’s your right to believe what ever you want to. I am sorry if that makes you feel angry or aggrieved. My ancestors were mainly Scottish and Irish…we still feel aggrieved at being conquered by the English and Welsh. But anger and revenge is backward thinking and gets you nowhere. It is far better to look forward, celebrating what we have and what we can peacefully aspire to.
By the way… I have Maori ancestors as well.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.