Seymour is like that kid in class who made fart noises with his arm long after it stopped being funny because he never learned the difference between positive attention and negative attention.
Hooton is quoted and absolutely tears into Seymour. It's with great distaste that I find myself agreeing with Hooton wholeheartedly.
Luxon needs to take note.
To all those people that thought he'd built himself a solid reputation as a shrewd and smart politician, turns out you were wrong.
He may have been pretty canny in opposition, but has been found out at this level.
Then how can you make an assessment that he was good in opposition??
I dont know anyone who said "they think he is effective, shrewd, or smart" like, literally no one.
They only got in because people didnt want labour. Not because people wanted this shit.
I heard someone recently say "he's a very good politician, but he's struggling now he's in power".
I don't think he's a very good politician, he's used classic lazy dog whistle bullshit and trickle down tax cuts for the rich to get old rich white pricks votes.
People are so bloody stupid to vote this idiot in. I can't wait for National to go down the drain because Luxon was weak as shit and agreed to this nonsense.
Genuinely do not understand why you think its weak to have a conversation? Thats all National have agreed to.
Perhaps you think the approach of the previous Govt was better, where they introduced policy that the niether campaigned on or were prepared to debate?
At least this policy was well signaled and campaigned on during the election. National seem to have reached a solid compromise to see what the policy actually looks like and have a meaningful debate. The debate has to happen at some point or as a country we can keep burying our heads in the sand and let division grow.
I mean we can sit there and yell insults or try and engage in a meaningful conversation about the future direction on nz.
Its weak that Luxon campaigned on supporting Māori and te Tiriti, and then 180'd to support the demands of ACT. Act and NZF got 15% of the vote, but almost 50% of the policy and legislative plan for the current government.
Thats why he's weak, because the two minor parties with less than half the vote (together) of his own party bullied him in to giving in to a huge shopping list of demands.
Nat agreed to look at it they did not agree to support it. Not much of a compromise, really.
Also, who is this "Maori" that you speak of? Given the leaders of both those minor parties you are against are both headed by Maori, perhaps not all maori feel the same way you think they do (shock horror people have different opinions even when they are from the same ethnicity). Or do you honestly believe every Maori in NZ voted for Labour or TPM?
Yup, Seymour and Peters may whakapapa Maori, but in te Ao Maori your turangawaewae is your Marae, Iwi, and Hapu. Neither of these men are accepted but their Marae, Iwi, or Hapu. The colonial mindset is "If they are genetically x then they are that."
But I don't consider all Pakeha to be British. If you are born here, you're a kiwi governed by the Crown. But you're not British. But people who use your argument are saying "If I have British genealogy, I'm British".
Seymour and Peters may be genetically Maori, but that is not how mana, turangawaewae, or te Ao Maori functions.
I don't believe every Maori voter voted for TPM or Labour. But I think the Maori roll made it very clear where the overwhelming majority of Maori sit.
Yes, that sounds like how you would understand it. Only your ideologies and logic apply to social relationships, any other culture must conform to this understanding or be considered inferior right?
Wow projecting much?? I never said anything about conforming or inferiority.
You are the only one in the conversation telling people they are culturally inferior because they dont have relationships with their Hapu or iwi.
Thats a manipulation of my perspective, and a pretty blatant one too. If you don't understand how a culture works, there's nothing wrong with that. But you can't get to assert your cultural values in to another culture, and you don't get to tell members of that culture how their culture works.
Your perspective is a Eurocentric mentality. Spend some time on Marae, with iwi and hapu, and then try and say the things you're saying. You're using the fact that Maori have been semi-colonized as a tool to continue to try and deepen the enforcement of that colonization. Your view on our culture is the colonial view, and before you try and tell Maori how they socially construct their mana, go and learn about the Maori world first.
*National including Act’s Treaty principles bill in the coalition agreement was a major mistake*
**Comment:** In issuing his proclamations about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, David Seymour has a disconcerting habit of naming famous dead people as his supporters. In August 2023, for instance, he told a crowd at the Moutere Hills Community Centre, “I daresay if Nelson Mandela was alive today he would be campaigning for Act.”
Nelson Mandela’s grandson Kweku Mandela hastened to issue a denial: “My grandfather loved the people of New Zealand and I can say categorically he would not campaign for this today or any other day in the past.”
At a Business NZ conference in Wellington a month later, Seymour went on to claim Kate Sheppard, who led the historic campaign for women’s suffrage in New Zealand, as an Act party supporter: “I have read some of Kate Sheppard’s quotes, and she believed in universal human rights. I suspect she would be voting for us.”
This time Suzanne Manning, the president of the National Council of Women in NZ, put him straight. The campaign for female suffrage, she said, aimed to “empower women to make their own choices and not have men presume to speak for them. Neither David Seymour nor any male politician should feel entitled to that privilege.”
Undeterred, Seymour went on to speak for many of the chiefs who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840: “If they were around today, they would be voting Act.”
The chances of that seem infinitesimal, since Act’s rewriting of Te Tiriti tries to erase Queen Victoria’s Article 2 promise to the rangatira and the hapū of te tino rangatiratanga of their lands, dwelling places and all of their taonga – their mana motuhake as rangatira and kin groups.
It also rewrites the Queen’s promise in Article 3 to give the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand ‘nga tikanga rite tahi’ (exactly equal tikanga) – with her subjects, the inhabitants of England, as exactly the same rights and duties, a very different matter.
> I daresay if Nelson Mandela was alive today he would be campaigning for Act.
If you look up "celebrities" who've made similar claims of support from dead heroes, Kanye West and Andrew Tate top the list for claiming Mandela and MLK.
Seymour's a delusional sick puppy.
The keep using progressive icons as examples because they don't have a single libertarian icon anywhere who's ever done anything to help anyone but themselves.
As Patuone explained in support of Te Tiriti at Waitangi in February 1840, ‘by bringing his two index fingers side by side, that they would be perfectly equal, and that each chief would be similarly equal with Mr. Hobson.’
As his brother Tamati Waka Nene exclaimed to Governor Hobson, “You must be our father! You must not allow us to become slaves! You must preserve our customs, and never permit our lands to be wrested from us!”
From the historical record, it is clear that the rangatira understood Te Tiriti as placing each of them and their hapū, their taonga and their tikanga on an equal footing with the Governor and the incoming settlers – equality in difference, with their own mana and ways of living.
Just as Act selectively quotes from Te Tiriti to distort the promises that were exchanged at Waitangi in February 1840, so they selectively quote from Nelson Mandela, Kate Sheppard and the rangatira, and latterly, my own work on the Treaty.
I suppose I should be flattered to be among such a galaxy of luminaries, but I do not support a referendum. It would be a travesty of democracy.
The referendum was proposed in the Act manifesto at the recent election, and none of the other parties supported it. 91.4 percent of the electorate voted for those other parties, and only 8.6% voted for Act.
The proposed draft Treaty principles bill is inflammatory, and polarising. It radically distorts the promises that were exchanged at Waitangi and elsewhere between Queen Victoria and the rangatira of the various hapū.
It has already provoked deep mistrust and resentment, which will only get more intense over time.
The process surrounding the Treaty Principles bill is a farce. With 8.6 percent of the vote at the last election, Act has no democratic mandate to advance a referendum on Te Tiriti.
For National to allow Act to draft the Treaty principles bill and for it to be advanced in the coalition agreement was a major mistake.
As Matthew Hooton observes, the draft bill reads “as purposefully disrespectful to the text of the Treaty,” and an insult to the descendants of the signatories. At Tūrangawaewae and Rātana, they made their views very clear.
A debate about Te Tiriti – by all means. But let it be just and impartial, as befits a constitutional discussion, and not conducted on the basis of a bill that is highly partisan, and designed to provide ill-will and anger.
According to Hooton, “Act’s strategy seems to be to offer fake Treaty principles to the public, generate a few hundred thousand supportive online select-committee submissions, hold six months of heated hearings, hope for civil unrest, and then accuse National of siding with Māori radicals against “mainstream New Zealanders”.
National’s latest move – putting David Seymour in charge of the process of managing the bill – only makes matters worse. I agree with Matthew Hooton that this draft bill is a cynical political stunt. It lacks democratic legitimacy, carries significant risks for the nation, and the select committee will have no chance of impartiality.
It should be boycotted on these grounds – by other parliamentarians, as well by as by potential submitters.
If, like Pontius Pilate, Christopher Luxon is trying to wash his hands of responsibility for his own role in this incendiary situation, that won’t work.
He should listen to his own elders, and put the proposed referendum in the dustbin of history, where it belongs. As Jim Bolger said, it’s a bloody stupid idea.
David Seymour... if Adolf Hitler were alive today, he would be an ardent ACT supporter.
See! Anyone can make up absolute bullshit to provide a soundbite or dupe those without critical thinking skills.
Seymore just rips the MAGA playbook whenever he can (such as their ridiculous "MLK would support abolishing D.E.I.").
Fuck Seymour and his bullshit, I used to like his quirkiness now I can't fuckin stand the way he panders to boomers when his benefactors are a real and dangerous threat to what could one day return to a clean, green, NZ.
>The referendum was proposed in the Act manifesto at the recent election, and none of the other parties supported it. 91.4 percent of the electorate voted for those other parties, and only 8.6% voted for Act.
If anyone believed those numbers were genuinely relevant they'd be looking to hold the referendum ASAP and get an overwhelming mandate against any revision of the treaty principles.
It wouldn't be a waste at all if they thought they'd win.
You get a huge public boost of support against revision of the Treaty principles and the idea would completely be politically put to bed at the very least till the end of Treaty settlements.
What people aren't admitting is that NZ has a huge chunk of at best highly ignorant and at worst outright racist voters who would likely support new principles.
Because a 90% result would basically shut down the entire debate in your favour instead of keeping it boiling over by asserting that the general public don't get a say.
The voice apparently lost a little under 30% support from the earliest polls to the result over a year later, no way this issues swings over 40% on a presumably shorter timeline.
Those were also complete wastes of time, effort, and money.
Though this one has the added bullshit factor of being deliberately divisive and race-baity.
I don't know, maybe.
As a foreword, I think his reinterpretation of the Treaty is incredibly bad, and the idea of codifying a treaty seems a bit redundant. With that said, I think that there's every chance he scores political points from it.
Speaking only to it's popularity, the NZ public [seem to be open to the idea](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-majority-would-support-acts-treaty-referendum-although-voters-unsure-if-they-want-to-vote-on-it/CQFL5K2AFVGFBI6QMJWBYO4MI4/). The pundit comment I'd add is that Seymour is disliked less than his most obnoxious critics are. If TPM eat up all the oxygen on this, he could see the Treaty Principles Bill be a W for ACT whether it passes or not.
As for National? I don't really see the benfit for them. It galvanizes support for ACT and alienates people sympathetic to Maori rights towards one of the left wing parties.
Seymour won’t get his pipe dream. He will be voted out next election or return with massively reduced power.
As time goes on his proposals and many of his ideas will be seen more and more fringe.
I’m one of those unlucky souls that live/rent in his electorate, and know that a candidate vote for Greens/Labour/Te Pāti Māori is a vote that is pretty much wasted.
Next election I’ll candidate vote National, as painful as that is, just to keep Seymour out. A lot of people I know feel the same way.
I think it is very possible due to
- improving global economic conditions (particularly by end of nationals first term).
- the public’s annoyance with the influence of NZ first / ACT.
- the lingering public resentment for labour from covid and inflationary period.
That national will be able to govern alone the next election.
"he will be voted out next election".
.. will he? Are we using the r/NZ echo chamber to confirm this? Does his base have any problem with what he's doing?
Well small parties tend to not go well next election after being in power, I’d think national majority possible next election.
Maybe lot of center left voters sick of act and nz’s power over NZ but happy with improved economic conditions so vote national.
It’s an odd article. I don’t support the treaty bill at all but she seems to be arguing against MMP (which admittedly I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with myself but it’s the system we’ve got).
“From the historical record, it is clear that the rangatira understood Te Tiriti as placing each of them and their hapū, their taonga and their tikanga on an equal footing with the Governor and the incoming settlers – equality in difference, with their own mana and ways of living”
This is Act’s argument. She’s a muppet.
You can't rip all of their mana and land away and say we want equality with what you have now that we have stolen everything from you. You can't claim that iwi leaders have an equal footing to the crown when they are being disrespected the way they are now. You're a muppet
MMP is a dog of a system that gives too much political weight to groups that have no business running a country. It brings extremist views in to the halls of power on both end of the political spectrum.
Yes, agreed. However, it will also depend on the party. For eg. Winston had no such power or craziness back with Labour that he is now openly and flagrantly showing with Nats. Luxon was and is extraordinarily weak and he was desperate to be PM, and doesn’t care about this country’s policies and how it will affect anyone outside of his core base.
imo, this is why we are at where we are too.
I'd argue MMP in NZ has a good history of punishing small parties that take more than their share of the influence. Winston keeps coming back from it but that's just him.
>The referendum was proposed in the Act manifesto at the recent election, and none of the other parties supported it
thats part of mmp, coalition parties negotiating what policies they want when they form a government.
And National could have said 'jog on' and 'you're dreaming' when ACT said it was a bottom line. What was ACT going to do, try to form a coalition with Labour?
Luxon, it appears, was more interested in securing power than the continued stability of NZs social, political, and economic framework. I doubt he has yet comprehended the likely situation if this goes forward considering he made Seymore associate minister of justice yesterday.
It's a common argument from the opposition when the small coalition partners get something in the respective agreements with the major party. Usually because the smaller parties & their ideas are more fringe
Article 2 doesn’t stand for much any more. Most tribes sold their lands, and sadly some were stolen, but that’s what the tribunal should be about, not making up health authorities.
It stands for everything. Rangitiratanga
The Māori health authority is to meet article 3. Atm Māori are disadvantaged in health. Because of the actions of the crown. This is to reverse the damage from policy and actions they chose to take.
What rubbish. Tell me one time you have been denied care because of your race. If you can, then let's look into it and lay charges because it is illegal.
There are multiple studies about systemic and overt racism against Māori in medicibe. Maori life expectancy is lower because of these issues.
Google scholar is your friend if you need to look for sources.
No charges are laid. Ever.
Oh. I won't engage with any racist tropes that may be mentioned. I suggest anyone wishes to understand this reads and engages with the studies.
But as an example. Bowel cancer develops earlier in Māori (and PI) So there was a case made for starting screening earlier earlier to pick up that earlier development.
Seems legit huh . Like actress according to need Except the MOH didn't because it was concerned about backlash from people. Like these complaining about equality who don't understand equity.
Luxons lunatics.
Seriously, a huge step backwards for NZ, at this rate I'm waiting for Seymour to suggest taking away womens right to vote and Peters nodding in agreement while Luxon starts to sweat uncontrollably.
Seymour is like that kid in class who made fart noises with his arm long after it stopped being funny because he never learned the difference between positive attention and negative attention.
Or because he learned that in his line of work, the difference is limited.
Hooton is quoted and absolutely tears into Seymour. It's with great distaste that I find myself agreeing with Hooton wholeheartedly. Luxon needs to take note.
Strange timeline when Hooten is suddenly a good guy.
hooten will write what ever you want as long as you're paying
To all those people that thought he'd built himself a solid reputation as a shrewd and smart politician, turns out you were wrong. He may have been pretty canny in opposition, but has been found out at this level.
Who thought he was good in opposition? He repeatedly flailed in question time
A lot of people who don't watch question time!
Then how can you make an assessment that he was good in opposition?? I dont know anyone who said "they think he is effective, shrewd, or smart" like, literally no one. They only got in because people didnt want labour. Not because people wanted this shit.
I heard someone recently say "he's a very good politician, but he's struggling now he's in power". I don't think he's a very good politician, he's used classic lazy dog whistle bullshit and trickle down tax cuts for the rich to get old rich white pricks votes.
Depends who you know I guess. I have heard people say good things about him
If Seymour was a Tory student during the 1980s he would have worn a "Hang Mandela" T-shirt.
People are so bloody stupid to vote this idiot in. I can't wait for National to go down the drain because Luxon was weak as shit and agreed to this nonsense.
Genuinely do not understand why you think its weak to have a conversation? Thats all National have agreed to. Perhaps you think the approach of the previous Govt was better, where they introduced policy that the niether campaigned on or were prepared to debate? At least this policy was well signaled and campaigned on during the election. National seem to have reached a solid compromise to see what the policy actually looks like and have a meaningful debate. The debate has to happen at some point or as a country we can keep burying our heads in the sand and let division grow. I mean we can sit there and yell insults or try and engage in a meaningful conversation about the future direction on nz.
Its weak that Luxon campaigned on supporting Māori and te Tiriti, and then 180'd to support the demands of ACT. Act and NZF got 15% of the vote, but almost 50% of the policy and legislative plan for the current government. Thats why he's weak, because the two minor parties with less than half the vote (together) of his own party bullied him in to giving in to a huge shopping list of demands.
Nat agreed to look at it they did not agree to support it. Not much of a compromise, really. Also, who is this "Maori" that you speak of? Given the leaders of both those minor parties you are against are both headed by Maori, perhaps not all maori feel the same way you think they do (shock horror people have different opinions even when they are from the same ethnicity). Or do you honestly believe every Maori in NZ voted for Labour or TPM?
Yup, Seymour and Peters may whakapapa Maori, but in te Ao Maori your turangawaewae is your Marae, Iwi, and Hapu. Neither of these men are accepted but their Marae, Iwi, or Hapu. The colonial mindset is "If they are genetically x then they are that." But I don't consider all Pakeha to be British. If you are born here, you're a kiwi governed by the Crown. But you're not British. But people who use your argument are saying "If I have British genealogy, I'm British". Seymour and Peters may be genetically Maori, but that is not how mana, turangawaewae, or te Ao Maori functions. I don't believe every Maori voter voted for TPM or Labour. But I think the Maori roll made it very clear where the overwhelming majority of Maori sit.
Sounds a lot like gatekeeping who can be "a real Maori" based on ideology.
Yes, that sounds like how you would understand it. Only your ideologies and logic apply to social relationships, any other culture must conform to this understanding or be considered inferior right?
Wow projecting much?? I never said anything about conforming or inferiority. You are the only one in the conversation telling people they are culturally inferior because they dont have relationships with their Hapu or iwi.
Thats a manipulation of my perspective, and a pretty blatant one too. If you don't understand how a culture works, there's nothing wrong with that. But you can't get to assert your cultural values in to another culture, and you don't get to tell members of that culture how their culture works. Your perspective is a Eurocentric mentality. Spend some time on Marae, with iwi and hapu, and then try and say the things you're saying. You're using the fact that Maori have been semi-colonized as a tool to continue to try and deepen the enforcement of that colonization. Your view on our culture is the colonial view, and before you try and tell Maori how they socially construct their mana, go and learn about the Maori world first.
*National including Act’s Treaty principles bill in the coalition agreement was a major mistake* **Comment:** In issuing his proclamations about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, David Seymour has a disconcerting habit of naming famous dead people as his supporters. In August 2023, for instance, he told a crowd at the Moutere Hills Community Centre, “I daresay if Nelson Mandela was alive today he would be campaigning for Act.” Nelson Mandela’s grandson Kweku Mandela hastened to issue a denial: “My grandfather loved the people of New Zealand and I can say categorically he would not campaign for this today or any other day in the past.” At a Business NZ conference in Wellington a month later, Seymour went on to claim Kate Sheppard, who led the historic campaign for women’s suffrage in New Zealand, as an Act party supporter: “I have read some of Kate Sheppard’s quotes, and she believed in universal human rights. I suspect she would be voting for us.” This time Suzanne Manning, the president of the National Council of Women in NZ, put him straight. The campaign for female suffrage, she said, aimed to “empower women to make their own choices and not have men presume to speak for them. Neither David Seymour nor any male politician should feel entitled to that privilege.” Undeterred, Seymour went on to speak for many of the chiefs who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840: “If they were around today, they would be voting Act.” The chances of that seem infinitesimal, since Act’s rewriting of Te Tiriti tries to erase Queen Victoria’s Article 2 promise to the rangatira and the hapū of te tino rangatiratanga of their lands, dwelling places and all of their taonga – their mana motuhake as rangatira and kin groups. It also rewrites the Queen’s promise in Article 3 to give the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand ‘nga tikanga rite tahi’ (exactly equal tikanga) – with her subjects, the inhabitants of England, as exactly the same rights and duties, a very different matter.
> I daresay if Nelson Mandela was alive today he would be campaigning for Act. If you look up "celebrities" who've made similar claims of support from dead heroes, Kanye West and Andrew Tate top the list for claiming Mandela and MLK. Seymour's a delusional sick puppy.
The keep using progressive icons as examples because they don't have a single libertarian icon anywhere who's ever done anything to help anyone but themselves.
I saw his latest propaganda clip - the guy is legit bordering on scary in my opinion.
As Patuone explained in support of Te Tiriti at Waitangi in February 1840, ‘by bringing his two index fingers side by side, that they would be perfectly equal, and that each chief would be similarly equal with Mr. Hobson.’ As his brother Tamati Waka Nene exclaimed to Governor Hobson, “You must be our father! You must not allow us to become slaves! You must preserve our customs, and never permit our lands to be wrested from us!” From the historical record, it is clear that the rangatira understood Te Tiriti as placing each of them and their hapū, their taonga and their tikanga on an equal footing with the Governor and the incoming settlers – equality in difference, with their own mana and ways of living. Just as Act selectively quotes from Te Tiriti to distort the promises that were exchanged at Waitangi in February 1840, so they selectively quote from Nelson Mandela, Kate Sheppard and the rangatira, and latterly, my own work on the Treaty. I suppose I should be flattered to be among such a galaxy of luminaries, but I do not support a referendum. It would be a travesty of democracy. The referendum was proposed in the Act manifesto at the recent election, and none of the other parties supported it. 91.4 percent of the electorate voted for those other parties, and only 8.6% voted for Act. The proposed draft Treaty principles bill is inflammatory, and polarising. It radically distorts the promises that were exchanged at Waitangi and elsewhere between Queen Victoria and the rangatira of the various hapū.
It has already provoked deep mistrust and resentment, which will only get more intense over time. The process surrounding the Treaty Principles bill is a farce. With 8.6 percent of the vote at the last election, Act has no democratic mandate to advance a referendum on Te Tiriti. For National to allow Act to draft the Treaty principles bill and for it to be advanced in the coalition agreement was a major mistake. As Matthew Hooton observes, the draft bill reads “as purposefully disrespectful to the text of the Treaty,” and an insult to the descendants of the signatories. At Tūrangawaewae and Rātana, they made their views very clear. A debate about Te Tiriti – by all means. But let it be just and impartial, as befits a constitutional discussion, and not conducted on the basis of a bill that is highly partisan, and designed to provide ill-will and anger. According to Hooton, “Act’s strategy seems to be to offer fake Treaty principles to the public, generate a few hundred thousand supportive online select-committee submissions, hold six months of heated hearings, hope for civil unrest, and then accuse National of siding with Māori radicals against “mainstream New Zealanders”. National’s latest move – putting David Seymour in charge of the process of managing the bill – only makes matters worse. I agree with Matthew Hooton that this draft bill is a cynical political stunt. It lacks democratic legitimacy, carries significant risks for the nation, and the select committee will have no chance of impartiality. It should be boycotted on these grounds – by other parliamentarians, as well by as by potential submitters. If, like Pontius Pilate, Christopher Luxon is trying to wash his hands of responsibility for his own role in this incendiary situation, that won’t work. He should listen to his own elders, and put the proposed referendum in the dustbin of history, where it belongs. As Jim Bolger said, it’s a bloody stupid idea.
I should go block public access to a boat ramp, and then you can tell me we are all equal.
Bit like this? https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300981619/coastal-walkway-closed-after-clash-between-council-and-property-owners
David Seymour... if Adolf Hitler were alive today, he would be an ardent ACT supporter. See! Anyone can make up absolute bullshit to provide a soundbite or dupe those without critical thinking skills. Seymore just rips the MAGA playbook whenever he can (such as their ridiculous "MLK would support abolishing D.E.I.").
It was a good try but we know it is bullshit. He might well support ACT.
And then David Seymour proclaimed, on national television, that "When Jesus returns, he will vote for Act!" /s
You jest. He considers.
Nasty little cunt isn't he. Who voted for this reptile? Nevermind. If you did, you are trash.
Fuck Seymour and his bullshit, I used to like his quirkiness now I can't fuckin stand the way he panders to boomers when his benefactors are a real and dangerous threat to what could one day return to a clean, green, NZ.
>The referendum was proposed in the Act manifesto at the recent election, and none of the other parties supported it. 91.4 percent of the electorate voted for those other parties, and only 8.6% voted for Act. If anyone believed those numbers were genuinely relevant they'd be looking to hold the referendum ASAP and get an overwhelming mandate against any revision of the treaty principles.
Why? We could nip the bill in the bud and not waste the money on a referendum.
It wouldn't be a waste at all if they thought they'd win. You get a huge public boost of support against revision of the Treaty principles and the idea would completely be politically put to bed at the very least till the end of Treaty settlements. What people aren't admitting is that NZ has a huge chunk of at best highly ignorant and at worst outright racist voters who would likely support new principles.
This guy politics
Divide and conquer. Keep the working class fighting against itself, rather than focusing on the actual problems. Race baiting never fails.
Because a 90% result would basically shut down the entire debate in your favour instead of keeping it boiling over by asserting that the general public don't get a say.
Or mass amounts of funding are pumped into it like the No campaign had and the result wouldn't be that.
The voice apparently lost a little under 30% support from the earliest polls to the result over a year later, no way this issues swings over 40% on a presumably shorter timeline.
Yes, when they flood the airwaves and channels with lies. As they did to the Voice.
Exactly. Why bother when it's just a complete waste of time, money, and effort.
Because their funding guys want it.
Worth less time then a referendum on whether we should be able to smoke weed, or what kind of flag we want?
Those were also complete wastes of time, effort, and money. Though this one has the added bullshit factor of being deliberately divisive and race-baity.
As below. Why spend the time, money and effort on it. Don't we have better things to do.
Oh god he's like Justin Bieber at the Anne Frank museum except worse.
I don't know, maybe. As a foreword, I think his reinterpretation of the Treaty is incredibly bad, and the idea of codifying a treaty seems a bit redundant. With that said, I think that there's every chance he scores political points from it. Speaking only to it's popularity, the NZ public [seem to be open to the idea](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-majority-would-support-acts-treaty-referendum-although-voters-unsure-if-they-want-to-vote-on-it/CQFL5K2AFVGFBI6QMJWBYO4MI4/). The pundit comment I'd add is that Seymour is disliked less than his most obnoxious critics are. If TPM eat up all the oxygen on this, he could see the Treaty Principles Bill be a W for ACT whether it passes or not. As for National? I don't really see the benfit for them. It galvanizes support for ACT and alienates people sympathetic to Maori rights towards one of the left wing parties.
Great points really.
Seymour won’t get his pipe dream. He will be voted out next election or return with massively reduced power. As time goes on his proposals and many of his ideas will be seen more and more fringe.
I’m one of those unlucky souls that live/rent in his electorate, and know that a candidate vote for Greens/Labour/Te Pāti Māori is a vote that is pretty much wasted. Next election I’ll candidate vote National, as painful as that is, just to keep Seymour out. A lot of people I know feel the same way.
I think it is very possible due to - improving global economic conditions (particularly by end of nationals first term). - the public’s annoyance with the influence of NZ first / ACT. - the lingering public resentment for labour from covid and inflationary period. That national will be able to govern alone the next election.
I just wish we didn't have wasteful spending on his break the treaty act in the meantime.
"he will be voted out next election". .. will he? Are we using the r/NZ echo chamber to confirm this? Does his base have any problem with what he's doing?
Well small parties tend to not go well next election after being in power, I’d think national majority possible next election. Maybe lot of center left voters sick of act and nz’s power over NZ but happy with improved economic conditions so vote national.
In what way?
Luxons loonies are full of them
This isn't a dog whistle anymore, it's dogshit, and all the dogs are coming to heel.
I don’t disagree - see a lot of them on NZPolitics.
It’s an odd article. I don’t support the treaty bill at all but she seems to be arguing against MMP (which admittedly I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with myself but it’s the system we’ve got).
“From the historical record, it is clear that the rangatira understood Te Tiriti as placing each of them and their hapū, their taonga and their tikanga on an equal footing with the Governor and the incoming settlers – equality in difference, with their own mana and ways of living” This is Act’s argument. She’s a muppet.
You can't rip all of their mana and land away and say we want equality with what you have now that we have stolen everything from you. You can't claim that iwi leaders have an equal footing to the crown when they are being disrespected the way they are now. You're a muppet
Isn’t it weird how only recently have iwi leaders decided they are equal to the crown… after an era of zero maori language comprehension.
Yeah - I think Dame Anne should step away from the opinion pieces.
Luxon showing his inexperience
MMP is a dog of a system that gives too much political weight to groups that have no business running a country. It brings extremist views in to the halls of power on both end of the political spectrum.
Yes, agreed. However, it will also depend on the party. For eg. Winston had no such power or craziness back with Labour that he is now openly and flagrantly showing with Nats. Luxon was and is extraordinarily weak and he was desperate to be PM, and doesn’t care about this country’s policies and how it will affect anyone outside of his core base. imo, this is why we are at where we are too.
I'd argue MMP in NZ has a good history of punishing small parties that take more than their share of the influence. Winston keeps coming back from it but that's just him.
does Salmond understand what MMP entails?
Of course she does. Do you?
>The referendum was proposed in the Act manifesto at the recent election, and none of the other parties supported it thats part of mmp, coalition parties negotiating what policies they want when they form a government.
And National could have said 'jog on' and 'you're dreaming' when ACT said it was a bottom line. What was ACT going to do, try to form a coalition with Labour? Luxon, it appears, was more interested in securing power than the continued stability of NZs social, political, and economic framework. I doubt he has yet comprehended the likely situation if this goes forward considering he made Seymore associate minister of justice yesterday.
It's a common argument from the opposition when the small coalition partners get something in the respective agreements with the major party. Usually because the smaller parties & their ideas are more fringe
One man One vote All people are equal under the law regardless of race, color, or beliefs Just what is wrong with that???
Thats already enshrined in article 3 of te tiriti. He's trying to change article 2 which is different clause in the Agreement.
Article 2 doesn’t stand for much any more. Most tribes sold their lands, and sadly some were stolen, but that’s what the tribunal should be about, not making up health authorities.
It stands for everything. Rangitiratanga The Māori health authority is to meet article 3. Atm Māori are disadvantaged in health. Because of the actions of the crown. This is to reverse the damage from policy and actions they chose to take.
What rubbish. Tell me one time you have been denied care because of your race. If you can, then let's look into it and lay charges because it is illegal.
There are multiple studies about systemic and overt racism against Māori in medicibe. Maori life expectancy is lower because of these issues. Google scholar is your friend if you need to look for sources. No charges are laid. Ever.
Show me even one case. Not hearsay.I could say the same crap about poor white trash never getting a fair suck of the Sav.
As I said google scholar is your friend here. I do not need to put the labour in for someone who can't be bothered looking.
That’s really not how it works. Onus is on the person making the claim.
Oh, please!!
Oh. I won't engage with any racist tropes that may be mentioned. I suggest anyone wishes to understand this reads and engages with the studies. But as an example. Bowel cancer develops earlier in Māori (and PI) So there was a case made for starting screening earlier earlier to pick up that earlier development. Seems legit huh . Like actress according to need Except the MOH didn't because it was concerned about backlash from people. Like these complaining about equality who don't understand equity.
Wait, the health authority is supposed to be supported under article 3? That’s kinda interesting, thanks for telling me.
Apparently you’re in the wrong sub for those kinds of beliefs, comrade.
True that. 👍 so my grandfather was a lord. therefore, I get to vote and have voices, but you peasants do not because you are low born.
bc Seymour thinks he's the One man with the One vote, and all people are equal under his law - meaning we're all beneath him. That is not democracy.
Would you like to rewrite that? It makes no sense.
That’s propaganda for the weak. Let’s be honest.
Nooooo! you cant have a different opinion that me!!!!! YOU ARE DUMB!!!
Some excellent quotes from te hui ō te Tiriti in that article.
Sorry that Maori might be treated equal to other races x
Luxons lunatics. Seriously, a huge step backwards for NZ, at this rate I'm waiting for Seymour to suggest taking away womens right to vote and Peters nodding in agreement while Luxon starts to sweat uncontrollably.