It's hard to take this essay seriously when it uses the right wing term "elites" as representative of those who disagree with the Bill, and suggest the best legal minds in our country opine as they do for self-interest.
Rather, they opine because constitutional and legal interpretation is their bread and butter.
Just as medical doctors might opine on smokefree repeal or on the merits of health policies.
It's ludicruous to say otherwise.
As to Curia, an organisation which was due to be expelled/suspended from the polling industry body before David Farrar jumped - it's hardly worth the paper it's written on.
Chris Trotter claims he's from the left while he appears to support libertarian interests which are ironically driven by true elites and oligarchs, and this piece is masked as objectivity when it can't help but leak out the talking points of ACT and David Seymour and concealing others.
PS I agree that ACT / National could succeed one day - they have the money and the resources behind it. And the cultivation of 6 months is nothing but a brute force publicity campaign for a contrived problem that has nothing to do with advancing the welfare of NZ.
All round, a very disappointing article for the bias it can't help but show, as well as insufficient analysis on the rhetoric.
I’m with you MT ! I support every point you make in this response to Bryce! ACT has absolutely nothing to recommend it, and National is disappointingly lily-livered in its collective response! Long live the REAL kiwis!👍
But the Maori party is elitist. Where were they during the parliamentary protest against the Covid mandates, while their Maori whanau were protesting in the cold under the sprinklers ? They were hiding in the Beehive behind Wilie Jackson and their Labour cronies. I only remember Winston Peters and maybe David Seymour who descended to walk amongst the "deplorables" in their river of filth outside parliament during that protest. All those elitist Maori MPs that sided with the pro vaaccination colonizer haters, and who hid in the Beehive, have lost all credibility for me, as they abandoned all their fellow working class NZers during that protest, for the baubles of office, and a few gold coins. Now Te Pati Maori expect to win hearts and minds with their current protest, but many of us remember them for their elitist behaviour during out last big protest, and are looking the other way. Remember all that wasnt long ago.
It's aimed to denigrate and discredit the voices of Maori by suggesting that elite is negative, but also subtly suggests that Maori are not allowed to have wealth or privileges and any who do are by definition not to be trusted.
So in your world, the Maori party is "elitist", while you overlook the fact that the true elitists in our world are feeding David Seymour, ACT and the like.
David Seymour and ACT was suckled on the teat by the likes of Koch Brothers / Atlas Network to parrot trickle down economics and other elite propaganda.
Here is David obediently learning and robotically repeating talking points for Atlas Network lobby groups in his early days and just before he was parachuted into NZ as an ACT MP candidate - against public transport no less:
I still think actions speak louder than words, and the 2 Maori party MPs made no effort to talk to all the working class protesters at Parliament against Covid mandates. Have you already forgotten that Winston Peters and David Seymour visited the protesters "village" outside parliament, while the elite Maori party MPs hid away in the beehive. Like I said, actions speak louder than words, including yours, and the Maori party have been permanently tarnished by their allegiance to Jacinda Ardern and her cronies. Nothing to do with wealth.
I can tell you have had too many Covid vaccine shots cos you are so angry. All those spike proteins must be eating away at you, making you paranoid and angry. You should give it up.
what publicity stunters Winnie Te Pu and SeyLess were going to those parliamentary protestors. No badge of honour with integrity there. You know where Te Pati were, working to care for their whanau, hapu and iwi in the crisis. Viva Te Paati. Anti vaxers eh, still alive and well in Aotearoa. Happy I bet, and feeling validated with JFK Jnr being at the health helm in the brave new world. But the reality is......that was the brave new world in parliament the other day doing the haka, and it's rising mate, it's rising. Possibly without you.
Te Pati Maori weren't at the dipshit antivaxxer parade because they were trying to *help* their community not kill it through a communicable disease you feckless fucking imbecile.
Thankyou for your thoughtful labels William, but I know that Te Pati Maori MPs spent plenty of time in parliament, looking down at the protesters, and ignoring them, and no amount of abusing me will change that fact. Winston and Seymour made the time to visit the protesters village, and they won the election accordingly.
The Covid vaccination mandates were deeply divisive even in my own community. However we have got over it and moved on with the understanding that vaccination should have been a personal choice and the mandates were logically and socially untenable. The treatment of the protesters in Wellington was also wrong. The media coverage of those events was false. We can agree on this much even if we don't agree on whether vaccination was a wise choice for the individual. Some people were made to suffer while others (including myself) got off relatively unscathed. We need to distinguish between those who abused power and those who failed to use their position to the good. We should also acknowledge that some who 'took the side of the angels" may have done so for opportunistic reasons. Having said all this, I think it is time to move on, and restore unity where and when we can. It is not about Te Pati Maori or any other party. It is about us coming together as a people and shaping our own destiny. That can only be done with magnanimity.
There are still plenty of us who want to shape our destiny by making sure there is accountability for all those cruel and evil doctors and officials who abused the public during Covid. The only reason they did it is because they assumed they could get away with it. That is why they need to be held to account, so they realize that people wont put up with it. Unity will only be restored when deviants like this are removed from among us. Can Rangatiratanga take care of this problem for us ? Some utu is needed.
"The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it". Grow up son.
The "elites" are opposed to the Treaty Principles Bill largely for pragmatic reasons. They quite properly fear that the Bill threatens to undermine the New Zealand state which depends for its survival on a collaborative relationship between Maori and the Crown. Although generally unremarked, this has been the case since kupapa troops tipped the balance in the war between Maori and colonialist forces in the nineteenth century wars of resistance, and it is as true in 2024 as it has ever been.
The movement fronted by the ACT party is not a simple US or European style populist revolt against the elites. The key difference is the existence of Maori, an existence which the TPB seeks to deny ("Maori are nothing more than citizens") and which Bryce manages to pretty well ignore in his analysis of the conflict.
Pakeha, on the other hand, for the most part have a symbiotic relationship with Maori and are rightly uneasy about the intentions of the Treaty Principles Bill.
In Europe and the US, right wing demagogues have worked towards inciting "citizens" (predominately ethnic Europeans) against "immigrants" (who happen to be mainly colored) and foreigners. To apply that same "populist" strategy against an indigenous minority such as Maori who have strong positive connections to other ethnic groups is to display a serious lack of political nous.
Over the past week we have seen thousands of tino rangatiratanga, whakaminenga and hapu flags flying in the streets and parks with the colonialist flag nowhere to be seen. This signifies a watershed moment in the history of the nation. The "elites" in Wellington have taken notice. They can see which way the wind blows and know that they must change tack. That is why the National Party in particular are most unlikely to risk allowing the Bill to proceed into law.
It has become clear over recent weeks that if Maori come into renewed conflict with the Crown there will be unity, and not just among iwi. This time around kotahitanga will extend deep into Pakeha and other ethnic communities putting the survival of the colonialist system in doubt for the first time in over a century.
That is some vision, but Brian Tamaki thinks you are just a small group of activists who dont have the numbers to represent anyone. I dont know how you will get enough support to make that power change happen, and how would it work ? Would Chris Luxon become redundant as PM, along with all the elected MPs? Who would decide who is in charge ? Tribal democracy may work well on the Marae, but it is too big a leap of faith to assume that would work well for 6 million people.
Wouldn't you say that we have seen pretty large numbers over the past 24 hours, Mark? Even Brian Tamaki might need to revise his "small group of activists" assessment.
That was an impressive turnout at parliament yesterday. National and NZ First arent supporting Seymours Bill anyway, so it looks like a foregone conclusion that it will be rejected. Luxon will be pleased with himself for that happy ending. I thought the Hikoi might keep rolling on, like the Covid protest.
I think it will, though not exclusively in Wellington. The marchers will return to their own rohe and resume work with their own people, listening, informing and organising. The Covid mandate protest became too fixated on parliament, to the point where they couldn't leave even when it became clear that parliament was not going to listen. Yesterday's marchers understand that the main on-going focus must be on the people and their local institutions, not parliament.
I am ambivalent towards modern technology, but one thing is clear: digital communications make it possible to apply the principles of rangatiratanga to a population of 6, 60 or 600 million. Continuous and open election, self-chosen constituencies, and variable size constituencies (elements of rangatiratanga) all become possible on a mass scale with electronic communications. However it is important that the real life social connections of the kainga and marae are maintained in the case of Maori, and further developed in the case of Pakeha. Lastly, rangatiratanga has a place for Christopher and Brian and all the others. When the people are empowered, as people themselves Christopher Luxon and Brian Tamaki will also be empowered. All they stand to lose is power that has not been freely granted to them by the people.
Luxon could have avoided it all. He needn't have entered a coalition with the other two crowds. Previous governments of left and right have ensured support with confidence and supply - Act and NZF were only going to support the Nats and they would have controlled the narrative.
Bryce Edwards did you write this? "Many voters may reason that if the nation’s top lawyers are against something, it is in their own self-interest to support it." What voters? Act voters? The hikoi reflects the beliefs of the majority of New Zealanders - we are all behind it and te Tiriti. D Seymour has been permitted by C Luxon and National to chip away at the nation's resolve with his slogans and repeated mantras based on his false interpretation of te Tiriti. We all will have to stand firm on this imported assault on our beliefs.
The "views" are those of the late Lord Cooke, a judge who is widely regarded as a complete nutter (he also thought he could over rule Parliament if it made laws he didnt like). Chief Justice Prendergast once ruled that the Treaty of Waitangi was a "simple nullity" (Wi Parata v The Bishop of Wellington -1877). Are you happy to leave this to lawyers? If they chnage their mind?
It is wrong to say that lawyers (or judges) have changed their interpretation of the Treaty. When Prendergast called it "a simple nullity" he was declining to interpret or in any way take account of the Treaty. If he had formed an opinion of the meaning of the Treaty (which he almost certainly would have done in private) then it is most probable that his understanding would not have differed from that of present day jurists. He would have seen that the document brings the legitimacy of the British claim to sovereignty into question. To avoid that question arising he described the Treaty as "a simple nullity". Lord Cooke had exactly the same problem but responded differently, choosing to advance the idea of "treaty principles" rather than dismissing the Treaty out of hand.
The interpretation has never been a problem. However the consequences of the only reasonable interpretation have been very problematic. So we have seen at least three ways of dealing with that the actual meaning of the Treaty. First to describe it as a simple nullity (Prendergast). Second, to extract from it a set of principles that are not inconsistent with the intent of the Treaty (Cooke). Third to attribute to it a set of supposedly definitive principles that are drawn from outside of the Treaty and are totally inconsistent with it (Seymour).
It disgusts me really that there are so many apparently opposed to being New Zealanders, which is fundamentally what the TPB is about. The entire protest just seems to be one great big childish tantrum with no adult logic in sight. No credible or even incredible arguments being put forward as to why Maori don't want to be New Zealanders. We'll I think we all know the answer. Clearly the PM is not opposed to division and perhaps a bit of race based co-governance otherwise he would have come out clearly in favour of the content of the Bill, even if there were other reasons for not supporting it further. Very disappointed and frustrated at where the nation is at right now in so many respects. Damn.
Kia ora Ron. The arguments against TPB have been well canvassed. In a nutshell, the principles which the Bill claims derive from the Treaty actually have no basis in the Treaty, and the principles that are stated in the Treaty do not appear in the Bill. If the Bill was to become law, in the eyes of the state Maori would cease to be Maori and would become mere "citizens". However Maori in general want to remain Maori. They do not want to be subsumed in the category of "New Zealand citizen". Why would they? Maoritanga provides security, meaning and purpose in life. New Zealand citizenship confers the rights to be exploited by capital and to pay taxes to the state. No Maori in their right mind is going to trade Maoritanga for a mess of colonialist pottage going under the name of "citizenship".
My preference and the future reality will be a nation united in rangatiratanga. Colonialism was a divisive force from the beginning. It sparked off many wars through the nineteenth century and continues to be a source of conflict. So colonialism will have to go, and rangatiratanga must be fully restored.
And, given that that is not my preference, or the preference of many others, it is worthwhile to have this TPB opportunity to openly discuss the merits of the possible ways that we could go forwards together.
Ah, a Maori tribal takeover then. Even clearer. No wait, division via self-rule, which inevitably would push us back a couple of hundred years to become a broken nation of multiple "self-ruled" warring tribes.
Kao, ano. One of the principles of rangatiratanga is kotahitanga. That extends beyond iwi to include Pakeha who embrace the principles of rangatiratanga. The trend of the past two centuries has been away from tribal conflict and towards kotahitanga, and by the grace of Ihoa that trend will continue without interruption. We will not be a broken nation. We will rule ourselves but we will also be subject to the rule of God, meaning that we shall act honestly with courage, compassion and generosity towards others.
Self-rule in a nation that is "not broken" is what is meant by all New Zealanders. Self-rule in a nation comprising multiple tribes is a divided, broken nation that is no longer a nation.
The former is what already exists, what the TPB enshrines, though what some people apparently want to destroy.
Then of course there's the aim of a Maori cultural takeover, which from performance to date (including current tantrums) is hardly going to create a land of peace and prosperity for all.
You are sounding a bit like Jacinda Ardern, because her big ideas lacked a plan so she often failed for that reason. I dont feel that you have a plan of how your vision could actually happen, which makes it a bit less convincing. You need to convince a lot of people.
Kao. Te Paipera Tapu promises that rangatiratanga is for all. "Kia tae mai to rangatiratanga...". Maori have manaakitanga for the manuhiri. When they are ready, Pakeha and other non-Maori will come to know what a genuine democracy looks like.
The outrageous implication that being a 'New Zealander' does not come from Te Tiriti, a treaty between Māori and the Crown is a basic misrepresentation.
Us all being New Zealanders comes directly from the Treaty, it is a key "principle", other than it seems for those who missed the memo 'now we are one'. So your agreeing with the TPB then?
I do not see 'he iwi tātou' written in Te Tiriti. It is merely a 50 years later recollection of a comment made on 6 February 1840. The Treaty Principles Bill fundamentally denies what Te Tiriti actually says, especially what was understood by the term 'kawanatanga' and in its exclusion of article 2. Historical misrepresentation writ large.
I’ve never met a New Zealander who knows, they are quick to tell me about where their parents or grandparents are from and the only answer I get which is consistent is *mumble*mumble* All Blacks
Ha ha, yes ... All Blacks. Never mind the Ernest Rutherfords and Edmund Hillarys and other upstanding, achieving characters that used to enable this nation to "punch well above its weight". Will we ever see the likes again. More seriously a New Zealander or a Klingon or whatever is in my view mostly, apart from what's written on the passport, about an overriding individual perception of national belonging (and associated duty, pride etc ) irrespective of ethnic or religious differences, or even what rugby team you support! The question though is a reasonable one. How is New Zealander formally defined. A Bill in which the concept is central surely needs to be explicit in its definition.
The irony is “they”, is presented here as some populist movement which has come together spontaneously. The reality is “elites” monopolised the social media Brexit campaign and the Voice campaign. Of course the majority of the population are doing it tough but these hidden campaigns manipulate people’s concerns and create someone to blame, in David Seymour’s case Māori is the cause of our problems because they are “privileged”. Last time I looked Maori feature strongly in the have- nots but Seymour never let facts get in the way of an ideology to undermine communities and civil society.
Bryce, as an 'elite' yourself, by referring to the experts who critique Seymour's bill as “elites,” you risk inadvertently reinforcing the very populist narrative you’re critiquing.
The language of “elites” is a central tactic in right-wing populist rhetoric, used strategically to position the political establishment—whether it’s politicians, the legal profession, or academics—as an out-of-touch, self-serving class. This oversimplification helps populist movements galvanize support by presenting themselves as the voice of the “common people” while painting their opposition as adversarial to the will of the majority.
In the case of Seymour’s bill, while it’s true that many of its critics come from legal and political institutions, labeling them as “elites” risks reducing the debate to a binary of people vs. establishment. This undermines the fact that much of the opposition to the bill is rooted in legal expertise and a commitment to upholding principles of Treaty interpretation, constitutional integrity, and informed governance—values that are essential for the long-term health of New Zealand’s political system. It also overlooks the fact that the bill itself was prepared by right-wing “elites.”
By adopting the populist language of “elites,” your piece inadvertently legitimises the populist tactic of stoking divisions between the "people" and those who hold institutional knowledge or power. Rather than amplifying this divide, it would be more productive to recognize that the criticism of Seymour’s bill from these experts is based on serious concerns about the legal and social implications, not simply a desire to protect the status quo.
It’s crucial to distinguish between those in positions of power who are genuinely concerned about the direction of Seymour’s proposals and those who are simply part of a political elite. The critics of the bill are not a homogenous group of “elites” trying to suppress the will of the people. Many of them are upholding a balanced, constitutional approach to Treaty relations and are advocating for careful, considered legislative changes, rather than being driven by populist sentiment or oversimplified solutions to a complex issue.
Minority groups are always troubled by majority responses. ACT and its leader may sound rational in isolation but in reality are a bigoted and will never accept that there is a better way of resolving issues. The reaction to the parliamentary haka is predictable from them and other right wing MP’s because it challenges their beliefs, which do not represent the Kiwi majority.
The situation in Aotearoa/New Zealand is less complicated than it seems, once we have all the pieces of the puzzle at hand. In a nutshell since first contact and up to the present day we have had two social orders, Maori and European, which have conflicting claims to sovereign authority going back to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. At times the Crown has been troubled by Maori claims to sovereignty, because it has been unable to tolerate the idea of a parallel Maori authority in the land. So we had the nineteenth century invasion of Maori lands by British and Australian forces, in the immediate aftermath of which Premier Julius Vogel contemplated a final war of extermination against Maori, before deciding that mass immigration of European settlers would offer the same gain for less pain.
From the British point of view, mass immigration worked well. It largely achieved its object, though not entirely. Today Maori still exist as an entity separate from the British system. One reason immigration was only partially successful was that not all immigrants were dyed-in-the-wool colonialists. Many integrated into the Maori system, mainly through marriage. As Maori assimilated Pakeha, the Maori social order changed, and there developed a Maori sphere, a European sphere, and a joint sphere where Maori and European engaged together. This joint sphere was large, covering the fields of work, religion, sports, culture, and politics. We had Maori shearing and logging gangs working for European farmers and foresters, and at the same time we had Maori farming their own remaining lands in Maori ways. In the Anglican Church/Te Hahi Mihinare we had two wings (actually now three) Tikanga Maori and Tikanga Pakeha and at the same time we had specifically Maori churches, Ratana and Ringatu. In opera we had Kiri te Kanawa and Inia te Wiata, in popular music we had Howard Morrison and the Maori show bands, but we still had waiata and kapahaka on the marae. We had the All Blacks, but still had the Maori All Blacks. We had general seats in parliament, but still had Maori seats, and back home we still had the Maori runanga.
In social terms, one can see that we had a "Maori sphere", a "joint sphere" and a "European sphere" (which was rather constricted because there was no field of endeavour where Maori did not make their mark). The one area where the European mode dominated completely was the area of political power and this was due to the peculiarities of the Westminster system, tempered somewhat by the introduction of the MMP system of representation. So along came He Puapua, the idea of cogovernance, which was founded on the notion that this "three sphere" social reality which works pretty well for all of us could be replicated in the realm of governance.
Cogovernance sparked a reaction very similar to the demand from Governor Grey that Maori must swear allegiance to Queen Victoria or forfeit their lands. Grey was not a simple "white racist" but he had insisted there could be only one sovereign in the nation and he was willing to go to war to that end.
David Seymour and the ACT party have the same view as George Grey. (While they talk about Hobson, they model themselves on Grey). The difference is that they do not intend to go to war. They believe that they can legislate Maori out of existence. They believe that a three page document can achieve what decades of war and two centuries of mass immigration have failed to achieve: the extinction of Maori as a separate social entity.
That is unrealistic. Notwithstanding the demographics, it is more realistic to assume that Pakeha can and should be fully integrated into Maoritanga.
“We were on such a good path in a bipartisan way, over many years we've been working toward trying to undo the burdens of the past so that we could move to the future together as one“.
Well, maybe? If this is actually the case then the structure of the approach is invisible to me. Helen Clark’s foreshore bill morphs to John Key’s version which then heads off for further beautification by the judiciary. This looks more like blind stumble-bumming than it does working ‘towards’ anything.
I agree with the misused description of "elites" in this conversation about our nation's attempt to resolve the ruckus generated by the Treaty Principles Bill.
BTW 1
42 King's Counsels are not 'deletes' yet they have been made as such.
The Waitangi Tribunal senior advisors to the PM are not 'deletes'.
Nor are any of the forthcoming 50,000plus Kiwis marching towards our NZ Parliament at this very moment.
BTW 2
ELITES? Caring professionals & voluntary carers should be considered our most precious "elites", as with our teachers, nurses, doctors, prison officers, social workers, cleaners, farmers, rubbish collectors, church & mosque holy ministers, CAB Volunteers, renewable energy engineers, public health researchers (such as myself) who are protesting the TPB.
Yes, We, the elites are unhappy.
Our founding documents are being challenged, and as the PM Luxon has said, you cannot wipe hundreds of years of legislation & Te Tiriti relationships just on a whim of adding this word or that word, and make it all shiney & new.
I posted last month on two other notable 'elites', Prof. Johnathan Boston & Dame Anne Salmond whose knowledge & understanding about NZ government policy & Te Tiriti is so vital at this time of our nation's reawakening, because yep - it's too damn important to just ignore & avoid what this hack TPB is proposing & already creating - division, hatred & unnecessary chaos.
Like many of us Boston & Salmond have challenged the TPB outrightly - publicly - because basically, what the Act proponents are disseminating is not just inaccurate - but also "fake" information!
AS: You've got someone [David Seymour] trying to instruct the rest of us about what it [Te Tiriti] says and what it means.
JB Actually, what he's telling us is something it [Te Tiriti] doesnt' say [at all].
So Why The Bill? Time to chill out, let's do what's right!
"Simplistic"; "populist". The reality is that the Maori tribalism model of The "Treaty "has failed. Spectacularly. Failed Maori. Thus almost twice the number of Maori live in OZ than vote for The Tea Party. If you want to grasp the public imagination work out a model to get Maori out of poverty- like the Scots of Dunedin; The Dove Myer Jews , and The Chinese of Haining St. The Samoans are, right now, abandoning the "povo forever" nonsense of The Greens, Tea Party Brothers; and The Chipkins Alliance. Carpe Diemlads. Not failed KC's promoting their own self interests.
Many New Zealanders of all ethnicities emigrate to Australia. That shows what we all know, which is that things are not exactly hunky-dory in New Zealand generally. It says nothing about the importance or positive benefits of Maoritanga.
What it shows is that The Tea Party are a minority even among their own. Had Sir Geoffrey Palmer stuck to his word about MMP there would be no Maori seats
It's hard to take this essay seriously when it uses the right wing term "elites" as representative of those who disagree with the Bill, and suggest the best legal minds in our country opine as they do for self-interest.
Rather, they opine because constitutional and legal interpretation is their bread and butter.
Just as medical doctors might opine on smokefree repeal or on the merits of health policies.
It's ludicruous to say otherwise.
As to Curia, an organisation which was due to be expelled/suspended from the polling industry body before David Farrar jumped - it's hardly worth the paper it's written on.
Chris Trotter claims he's from the left while he appears to support libertarian interests which are ironically driven by true elites and oligarchs, and this piece is masked as objectivity when it can't help but leak out the talking points of ACT and David Seymour and concealing others.
PS I agree that ACT / National could succeed one day - they have the money and the resources behind it. And the cultivation of 6 months is nothing but a brute force publicity campaign for a contrived problem that has nothing to do with advancing the welfare of NZ.
All round, a very disappointing article for the bias it can't help but show, as well as insufficient analysis on the rhetoric.
The real elites are the billionaires & other rich-listers who effectively purchase governments & expect big returns. And not just in NZ.
Of course. It's just a right wing talking point to say otherwise.
I’m with you MT ! I support every point you make in this response to Bryce! ACT has absolutely nothing to recommend it, and National is disappointingly lily-livered in its collective response! Long live the REAL kiwis!👍
But the Maori party is elitist. Where were they during the parliamentary protest against the Covid mandates, while their Maori whanau were protesting in the cold under the sprinklers ? They were hiding in the Beehive behind Wilie Jackson and their Labour cronies. I only remember Winston Peters and maybe David Seymour who descended to walk amongst the "deplorables" in their river of filth outside parliament during that protest. All those elitist Maori MPs that sided with the pro vaaccination colonizer haters, and who hid in the Beehive, have lost all credibility for me, as they abandoned all their fellow working class NZers during that protest, for the baubles of office, and a few gold coins. Now Te Pati Maori expect to win hearts and minds with their current protest, but many of us remember them for their elitist behaviour during out last big protest, and are looking the other way. Remember all that wasnt long ago.
I've heard this one before.
It's aimed to denigrate and discredit the voices of Maori by suggesting that elite is negative, but also subtly suggests that Maori are not allowed to have wealth or privileges and any who do are by definition not to be trusted.
So in your world, the Maori party is "elitist", while you overlook the fact that the true elitists in our world are feeding David Seymour, ACT and the like.
David Seymour and ACT was suckled on the teat by the likes of Koch Brothers / Atlas Network to parrot trickle down economics and other elite propaganda.
Here is David obediently learning and robotically repeating talking points for Atlas Network lobby groups in his early days and just before he was parachuted into NZ as an ACT MP candidate - against public transport no less:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djC2pj4Tu3Q
So if you want to suggest elitism, maybe you want to take a genuine look at the word and the context before you parrot such terms.
I still think actions speak louder than words, and the 2 Maori party MPs made no effort to talk to all the working class protesters at Parliament against Covid mandates. Have you already forgotten that Winston Peters and David Seymour visited the protesters "village" outside parliament, while the elite Maori party MPs hid away in the beehive. Like I said, actions speak louder than words, including yours, and the Maori party have been permanently tarnished by their allegiance to Jacinda Ardern and her cronies. Nothing to do with wealth.
Shut the fuck up you dipshit conspiracy theorist moron.
I can tell you have had too many Covid vaccine shots cos you are so angry. All those spike proteins must be eating away at you, making you paranoid and angry. You should give it up.
Unnecessary and unkind
what publicity stunters Winnie Te Pu and SeyLess were going to those parliamentary protestors. No badge of honour with integrity there. You know where Te Pati were, working to care for their whanau, hapu and iwi in the crisis. Viva Te Paati. Anti vaxers eh, still alive and well in Aotearoa. Happy I bet, and feeling validated with JFK Jnr being at the health helm in the brave new world. But the reality is......that was the brave new world in parliament the other day doing the haka, and it's rising mate, it's rising. Possibly without you.
Te Pati Maori weren't at the dipshit antivaxxer parade because they were trying to *help* their community not kill it through a communicable disease you feckless fucking imbecile.
Thankyou for your thoughtful labels William, but I know that Te Pati Maori MPs spent plenty of time in parliament, looking down at the protesters, and ignoring them, and no amount of abusing me will change that fact. Winston and Seymour made the time to visit the protesters village, and they won the election accordingly.
The Covid vaccination mandates were deeply divisive even in my own community. However we have got over it and moved on with the understanding that vaccination should have been a personal choice and the mandates were logically and socially untenable. The treatment of the protesters in Wellington was also wrong. The media coverage of those events was false. We can agree on this much even if we don't agree on whether vaccination was a wise choice for the individual. Some people were made to suffer while others (including myself) got off relatively unscathed. We need to distinguish between those who abused power and those who failed to use their position to the good. We should also acknowledge that some who 'took the side of the angels" may have done so for opportunistic reasons. Having said all this, I think it is time to move on, and restore unity where and when we can. It is not about Te Pati Maori or any other party. It is about us coming together as a people and shaping our own destiny. That can only be done with magnanimity.
There are still plenty of us who want to shape our destiny by making sure there is accountability for all those cruel and evil doctors and officials who abused the public during Covid. The only reason they did it is because they assumed they could get away with it. That is why they need to be held to account, so they realize that people wont put up with it. Unity will only be restored when deviants like this are removed from among us. Can Rangatiratanga take care of this problem for us ? Some utu is needed.
"The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it". Grow up son.
The "elites" are opposed to the Treaty Principles Bill largely for pragmatic reasons. They quite properly fear that the Bill threatens to undermine the New Zealand state which depends for its survival on a collaborative relationship between Maori and the Crown. Although generally unremarked, this has been the case since kupapa troops tipped the balance in the war between Maori and colonialist forces in the nineteenth century wars of resistance, and it is as true in 2024 as it has ever been.
The movement fronted by the ACT party is not a simple US or European style populist revolt against the elites. The key difference is the existence of Maori, an existence which the TPB seeks to deny ("Maori are nothing more than citizens") and which Bryce manages to pretty well ignore in his analysis of the conflict.
Pakeha, on the other hand, for the most part have a symbiotic relationship with Maori and are rightly uneasy about the intentions of the Treaty Principles Bill.
In Europe and the US, right wing demagogues have worked towards inciting "citizens" (predominately ethnic Europeans) against "immigrants" (who happen to be mainly colored) and foreigners. To apply that same "populist" strategy against an indigenous minority such as Maori who have strong positive connections to other ethnic groups is to display a serious lack of political nous.
Over the past week we have seen thousands of tino rangatiratanga, whakaminenga and hapu flags flying in the streets and parks with the colonialist flag nowhere to be seen. This signifies a watershed moment in the history of the nation. The "elites" in Wellington have taken notice. They can see which way the wind blows and know that they must change tack. That is why the National Party in particular are most unlikely to risk allowing the Bill to proceed into law.
It has become clear over recent weeks that if Maori come into renewed conflict with the Crown there will be unity, and not just among iwi. This time around kotahitanga will extend deep into Pakeha and other ethnic communities putting the survival of the colonialist system in doubt for the first time in over a century.
That is some vision, but Brian Tamaki thinks you are just a small group of activists who dont have the numbers to represent anyone. I dont know how you will get enough support to make that power change happen, and how would it work ? Would Chris Luxon become redundant as PM, along with all the elected MPs? Who would decide who is in charge ? Tribal democracy may work well on the Marae, but it is too big a leap of faith to assume that would work well for 6 million people.
Wouldn't you say that we have seen pretty large numbers over the past 24 hours, Mark? Even Brian Tamaki might need to revise his "small group of activists" assessment.
That was an impressive turnout at parliament yesterday. National and NZ First arent supporting Seymours Bill anyway, so it looks like a foregone conclusion that it will be rejected. Luxon will be pleased with himself for that happy ending. I thought the Hikoi might keep rolling on, like the Covid protest.
I think it will, though not exclusively in Wellington. The marchers will return to their own rohe and resume work with their own people, listening, informing and organising. The Covid mandate protest became too fixated on parliament, to the point where they couldn't leave even when it became clear that parliament was not going to listen. Yesterday's marchers understand that the main on-going focus must be on the people and their local institutions, not parliament.
I am ambivalent towards modern technology, but one thing is clear: digital communications make it possible to apply the principles of rangatiratanga to a population of 6, 60 or 600 million. Continuous and open election, self-chosen constituencies, and variable size constituencies (elements of rangatiratanga) all become possible on a mass scale with electronic communications. However it is important that the real life social connections of the kainga and marae are maintained in the case of Maori, and further developed in the case of Pakeha. Lastly, rangatiratanga has a place for Christopher and Brian and all the others. When the people are empowered, as people themselves Christopher Luxon and Brian Tamaki will also be empowered. All they stand to lose is power that has not been freely granted to them by the people.
Luxon could have avoided it all. He needn't have entered a coalition with the other two crowds. Previous governments of left and right have ensured support with confidence and supply - Act and NZF were only going to support the Nats and they would have controlled the narrative.
Bryce Edwards did you write this? "Many voters may reason that if the nation’s top lawyers are against something, it is in their own self-interest to support it." What voters? Act voters? The hikoi reflects the beliefs of the majority of New Zealanders - we are all behind it and te Tiriti. D Seymour has been permitted by C Luxon and National to chip away at the nation's resolve with his slogans and repeated mantras based on his false interpretation of te Tiriti. We all will have to stand firm on this imported assault on our beliefs.
The "views" are those of the late Lord Cooke, a judge who is widely regarded as a complete nutter (he also thought he could over rule Parliament if it made laws he didnt like). Chief Justice Prendergast once ruled that the Treaty of Waitangi was a "simple nullity" (Wi Parata v The Bishop of Wellington -1877). Are you happy to leave this to lawyers? If they chnage their mind?
It is wrong to say that lawyers (or judges) have changed their interpretation of the Treaty. When Prendergast called it "a simple nullity" he was declining to interpret or in any way take account of the Treaty. If he had formed an opinion of the meaning of the Treaty (which he almost certainly would have done in private) then it is most probable that his understanding would not have differed from that of present day jurists. He would have seen that the document brings the legitimacy of the British claim to sovereignty into question. To avoid that question arising he described the Treaty as "a simple nullity". Lord Cooke had exactly the same problem but responded differently, choosing to advance the idea of "treaty principles" rather than dismissing the Treaty out of hand.
The interpretation has never been a problem. However the consequences of the only reasonable interpretation have been very problematic. So we have seen at least three ways of dealing with that the actual meaning of the Treaty. First to describe it as a simple nullity (Prendergast). Second, to extract from it a set of principles that are not inconsistent with the intent of the Treaty (Cooke). Third to attribute to it a set of supposedly definitive principles that are drawn from outside of the Treaty and are totally inconsistent with it (Seymour).
Its called "Original Intent" sunshine. It stops the Litigation Retailers dead in their tracks. Your assertions simply contradict history:
https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/vuwlr/article/view/5634/5016
It disgusts me really that there are so many apparently opposed to being New Zealanders, which is fundamentally what the TPB is about. The entire protest just seems to be one great big childish tantrum with no adult logic in sight. No credible or even incredible arguments being put forward as to why Maori don't want to be New Zealanders. We'll I think we all know the answer. Clearly the PM is not opposed to division and perhaps a bit of race based co-governance otherwise he would have come out clearly in favour of the content of the Bill, even if there were other reasons for not supporting it further. Very disappointed and frustrated at where the nation is at right now in so many respects. Damn.
Kia ora Ron. The arguments against TPB have been well canvassed. In a nutshell, the principles which the Bill claims derive from the Treaty actually have no basis in the Treaty, and the principles that are stated in the Treaty do not appear in the Bill. If the Bill was to become law, in the eyes of the state Maori would cease to be Maori and would become mere "citizens". However Maori in general want to remain Maori. They do not want to be subsumed in the category of "New Zealand citizen". Why would they? Maoritanga provides security, meaning and purpose in life. New Zealand citizenship confers the rights to be exploited by capital and to pay taxes to the state. No Maori in their right mind is going to trade Maoritanga for a mess of colonialist pottage going under the name of "citizenship".
Geoff, your clear preference calling for a divided nation is noted.
Perhaps it would be best if others came out with it similarly clearly.
My preference and the future reality will be a nation united in rangatiratanga. Colonialism was a divisive force from the beginning. It sparked off many wars through the nineteenth century and continues to be a source of conflict. So colonialism will have to go, and rangatiratanga must be fully restored.
And, given that that is not my preference, or the preference of many others, it is worthwhile to have this TPB opportunity to openly discuss the merits of the possible ways that we could go forwards together.
For sure
Ah, a Maori tribal takeover then. Even clearer. No wait, division via self-rule, which inevitably would push us back a couple of hundred years to become a broken nation of multiple "self-ruled" warring tribes.
Kao, ano. One of the principles of rangatiratanga is kotahitanga. That extends beyond iwi to include Pakeha who embrace the principles of rangatiratanga. The trend of the past two centuries has been away from tribal conflict and towards kotahitanga, and by the grace of Ihoa that trend will continue without interruption. We will not be a broken nation. We will rule ourselves but we will also be subject to the rule of God, meaning that we shall act honestly with courage, compassion and generosity towards others.
Self-rule in a nation that is "not broken" is what is meant by all New Zealanders. Self-rule in a nation comprising multiple tribes is a divided, broken nation that is no longer a nation.
The former is what already exists, what the TPB enshrines, though what some people apparently want to destroy.
Then of course there's the aim of a Maori cultural takeover, which from performance to date (including current tantrums) is hardly going to create a land of peace and prosperity for all.
You are sounding a bit like Jacinda Ardern, because her big ideas lacked a plan so she often failed for that reason. I dont feel that you have a plan of how your vision could actually happen, which makes it a bit less convincing. You need to convince a lot of people.
Kao. Te Paipera Tapu promises that rangatiratanga is for all. "Kia tae mai to rangatiratanga...". Maori have manaakitanga for the manuhiri. When they are ready, Pakeha and other non-Maori will come to know what a genuine democracy looks like.
"Genuine democracy" must be the new term for anarchy then.
Adult logic? Are you claiming that your misrepresentation of history and of this country is an example of this adult logic?
To what "historical misrepresentation" do you refer Andrew?
Is that you David?
The outrageous implication that being a 'New Zealander' does not come from Te Tiriti, a treaty between Māori and the Crown is a basic misrepresentation.
Us all being New Zealanders comes directly from the Treaty, it is a key "principle", other than it seems for those who missed the memo 'now we are one'. So your agreeing with the TPB then?
I do not see 'he iwi tātou' written in Te Tiriti. It is merely a 50 years later recollection of a comment made on 6 February 1840. The Treaty Principles Bill fundamentally denies what Te Tiriti actually says, especially what was understood by the term 'kawanatanga' and in its exclusion of article 2. Historical misrepresentation writ large.
If you think the TPB misrepresents what was said in the Treaty, then whilst I disagree, that is an argument that can be made during consultation.
What is “being a New Zealander”?
I’ve never met a New Zealander who knows, they are quick to tell me about where their parents or grandparents are from and the only answer I get which is consistent is *mumble*mumble* All Blacks
What is your answer to the question David?
Ha ha, yes ... All Blacks. Never mind the Ernest Rutherfords and Edmund Hillarys and other upstanding, achieving characters that used to enable this nation to "punch well above its weight". Will we ever see the likes again. More seriously a New Zealander or a Klingon or whatever is in my view mostly, apart from what's written on the passport, about an overriding individual perception of national belonging (and associated duty, pride etc ) irrespective of ethnic or religious differences, or even what rugby team you support! The question though is a reasonable one. How is New Zealander formally defined. A Bill in which the concept is central surely needs to be explicit in its definition.
The irony is “they”, is presented here as some populist movement which has come together spontaneously. The reality is “elites” monopolised the social media Brexit campaign and the Voice campaign. Of course the majority of the population are doing it tough but these hidden campaigns manipulate people’s concerns and create someone to blame, in David Seymour’s case Māori is the cause of our problems because they are “privileged”. Last time I looked Maori feature strongly in the have- nots but Seymour never let facts get in the way of an ideology to undermine communities and civil society.
Bryce, as an 'elite' yourself, by referring to the experts who critique Seymour's bill as “elites,” you risk inadvertently reinforcing the very populist narrative you’re critiquing.
The language of “elites” is a central tactic in right-wing populist rhetoric, used strategically to position the political establishment—whether it’s politicians, the legal profession, or academics—as an out-of-touch, self-serving class. This oversimplification helps populist movements galvanize support by presenting themselves as the voice of the “common people” while painting their opposition as adversarial to the will of the majority.
In the case of Seymour’s bill, while it’s true that many of its critics come from legal and political institutions, labeling them as “elites” risks reducing the debate to a binary of people vs. establishment. This undermines the fact that much of the opposition to the bill is rooted in legal expertise and a commitment to upholding principles of Treaty interpretation, constitutional integrity, and informed governance—values that are essential for the long-term health of New Zealand’s political system. It also overlooks the fact that the bill itself was prepared by right-wing “elites.”
By adopting the populist language of “elites,” your piece inadvertently legitimises the populist tactic of stoking divisions between the "people" and those who hold institutional knowledge or power. Rather than amplifying this divide, it would be more productive to recognize that the criticism of Seymour’s bill from these experts is based on serious concerns about the legal and social implications, not simply a desire to protect the status quo.
It’s crucial to distinguish between those in positions of power who are genuinely concerned about the direction of Seymour’s proposals and those who are simply part of a political elite. The critics of the bill are not a homogenous group of “elites” trying to suppress the will of the people. Many of them are upholding a balanced, constitutional approach to Treaty relations and are advocating for careful, considered legislative changes, rather than being driven by populist sentiment or oversimplified solutions to a complex issue.
Minority groups are always troubled by majority responses. ACT and its leader may sound rational in isolation but in reality are a bigoted and will never accept that there is a better way of resolving issues. The reaction to the parliamentary haka is predictable from them and other right wing MP’s because it challenges their beliefs, which do not represent the Kiwi majority.
The situation in Aotearoa/New Zealand is less complicated than it seems, once we have all the pieces of the puzzle at hand. In a nutshell since first contact and up to the present day we have had two social orders, Maori and European, which have conflicting claims to sovereign authority going back to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. At times the Crown has been troubled by Maori claims to sovereignty, because it has been unable to tolerate the idea of a parallel Maori authority in the land. So we had the nineteenth century invasion of Maori lands by British and Australian forces, in the immediate aftermath of which Premier Julius Vogel contemplated a final war of extermination against Maori, before deciding that mass immigration of European settlers would offer the same gain for less pain.
From the British point of view, mass immigration worked well. It largely achieved its object, though not entirely. Today Maori still exist as an entity separate from the British system. One reason immigration was only partially successful was that not all immigrants were dyed-in-the-wool colonialists. Many integrated into the Maori system, mainly through marriage. As Maori assimilated Pakeha, the Maori social order changed, and there developed a Maori sphere, a European sphere, and a joint sphere where Maori and European engaged together. This joint sphere was large, covering the fields of work, religion, sports, culture, and politics. We had Maori shearing and logging gangs working for European farmers and foresters, and at the same time we had Maori farming their own remaining lands in Maori ways. In the Anglican Church/Te Hahi Mihinare we had two wings (actually now three) Tikanga Maori and Tikanga Pakeha and at the same time we had specifically Maori churches, Ratana and Ringatu. In opera we had Kiri te Kanawa and Inia te Wiata, in popular music we had Howard Morrison and the Maori show bands, but we still had waiata and kapahaka on the marae. We had the All Blacks, but still had the Maori All Blacks. We had general seats in parliament, but still had Maori seats, and back home we still had the Maori runanga.
In social terms, one can see that we had a "Maori sphere", a "joint sphere" and a "European sphere" (which was rather constricted because there was no field of endeavour where Maori did not make their mark). The one area where the European mode dominated completely was the area of political power and this was due to the peculiarities of the Westminster system, tempered somewhat by the introduction of the MMP system of representation. So along came He Puapua, the idea of cogovernance, which was founded on the notion that this "three sphere" social reality which works pretty well for all of us could be replicated in the realm of governance.
Cogovernance sparked a reaction very similar to the demand from Governor Grey that Maori must swear allegiance to Queen Victoria or forfeit their lands. Grey was not a simple "white racist" but he had insisted there could be only one sovereign in the nation and he was willing to go to war to that end.
David Seymour and the ACT party have the same view as George Grey. (While they talk about Hobson, they model themselves on Grey). The difference is that they do not intend to go to war. They believe that they can legislate Maori out of existence. They believe that a three page document can achieve what decades of war and two centuries of mass immigration have failed to achieve: the extinction of Maori as a separate social entity.
That is unrealistic. Notwithstanding the demographics, it is more realistic to assume that Pakeha can and should be fully integrated into Maoritanga.
“We were on such a good path in a bipartisan way, over many years we've been working toward trying to undo the burdens of the past so that we could move to the future together as one“.
Well, maybe? If this is actually the case then the structure of the approach is invisible to me. Helen Clark’s foreshore bill morphs to John Key’s version which then heads off for further beautification by the judiciary. This looks more like blind stumble-bumming than it does working ‘towards’ anything.
I agree with the misused description of "elites" in this conversation about our nation's attempt to resolve the ruckus generated by the Treaty Principles Bill.
BTW 1
42 King's Counsels are not 'deletes' yet they have been made as such.
The Waitangi Tribunal senior advisors to the PM are not 'deletes'.
Nor are any of the forthcoming 50,000plus Kiwis marching towards our NZ Parliament at this very moment.
BTW 2
ELITES? Caring professionals & voluntary carers should be considered our most precious "elites", as with our teachers, nurses, doctors, prison officers, social workers, cleaners, farmers, rubbish collectors, church & mosque holy ministers, CAB Volunteers, renewable energy engineers, public health researchers (such as myself) who are protesting the TPB.
Yes, We, the elites are unhappy.
Our founding documents are being challenged, and as the PM Luxon has said, you cannot wipe hundreds of years of legislation & Te Tiriti relationships just on a whim of adding this word or that word, and make it all shiney & new.
I posted last month on two other notable 'elites', Prof. Johnathan Boston & Dame Anne Salmond whose knowledge & understanding about NZ government policy & Te Tiriti is so vital at this time of our nation's reawakening, because yep - it's too damn important to just ignore & avoid what this hack TPB is proposing & already creating - division, hatred & unnecessary chaos.
Like many of us Boston & Salmond have challenged the TPB outrightly - publicly - because basically, what the Act proponents are disseminating is not just inaccurate - but also "fake" information!
AS: You've got someone [David Seymour] trying to instruct the rest of us about what it [Te Tiriti] says and what it means.
JB Actually, what he's telling us is something it [Te Tiriti] doesnt' say [at all].
So Why The Bill? Time to chill out, let's do what's right!
https://x.com/Tui22Sings/status/1843327595552931850
"Simplistic"; "populist". The reality is that the Maori tribalism model of The "Treaty "has failed. Spectacularly. Failed Maori. Thus almost twice the number of Maori live in OZ than vote for The Tea Party. If you want to grasp the public imagination work out a model to get Maori out of poverty- like the Scots of Dunedin; The Dove Myer Jews , and The Chinese of Haining St. The Samoans are, right now, abandoning the "povo forever" nonsense of The Greens, Tea Party Brothers; and The Chipkins Alliance. Carpe Diemlads. Not failed KC's promoting their own self interests.
Many New Zealanders of all ethnicities emigrate to Australia. That shows what we all know, which is that things are not exactly hunky-dory in New Zealand generally. It says nothing about the importance or positive benefits of Maoritanga.
What it shows is that The Tea Party are a minority even among their own. Had Sir Geoffrey Palmer stuck to his word about MMP there would be no Maori seats