David Seymour & the treaty

[Lilith7]

The political hot potato.


https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/politics/35...dum-policy


"David Seymour wants to talk. It’s just a few days after the election, the negotiations to form the new government are but negotiations about negotiations, and party leaders on the political right are cautious about saying too much in public.


But Seymour is on the phone, speaking about ACT’s stance on the Treaty of Waitangi and its demand for a referendum on the issue – perhaps the hottest of hot political potatoes sitting on the negotiation table.
And he’s not holding back.

The Sunday Star-Times had asked what had changed since 2016 when Seymour spoke in very different terms about the state of race relations.
In an RNZ interview about Hobson’s Pledge which had just been formed, fronted by former ACT and National leader Don Brash, Seymour talked about the importance of realising political events happened in a context.
He compared 2016 to 2004 when Brash gave his famous “Ōrewa speech”, and the country was divided over the foreshore and seabed debate.



“Now, here we are 12 years on, at least two members of my family are currently attempting to learn Māori … that’s how times have moved on. You’ve now got mainly white middle class people who are embracing Māori culture – a very different environment from what we faced in 2004.”

And that wasn’t an aberration. In 2014, during an interview with the Listener, he spoke out about previous ACT campaigns around Māori issues. “I reject, for example, having a newspaper advertisement that says, ‘Sick of the Māorification of Everything?’ That was disgraceful.”
Seymour told the Listener he considered leaving the party in 2011 because of that ad. He expressed disdain for how previous leader Jamie Whyte had played the race card in the 2014 election.

   
But if things aren’t good, shouldn’t Seymour and other politicians who have made an issue of the Treaty take some responsibility?
After all, there have been warnings this week from Te Pāti Māori’s John Tamihere and the Greens’ James Shaw about the possibility of violence if ACT’s Treaty referendum goes ahead.

Earlier in the year, the spokesperson for the Iwi Chairs Forum and Treaty educator had a Zoom meeting with Seymour.
“I thought, ‘I want to find out what the heck he’s on about’,” says Hamilton.
“I’m a really, really patient and tolerant person … but he really frustrated me and it was difficult to have a proper conversation with him.
“He said to me things like, ‘I’m an intelligent man and I’m in this because I know what I’m doing’, and I tried to give him credit for that.”

But in the end the conversation ended without going anywhere, and they agreed to differ.
“I found him to be so … ignorant [and] a bit judgemental … but he was really, really difficult is probably the best way of putting it.”
Is that what we can expect of Seymour in government? Does that mean he will insist on the referendum?
Ben Thomas is not so sure.
“There are always compromises to be made, that’s what politics is,” says Thomas."

[Oh_hunnihunni]

There is only one intent behind this drive towards the referendum, to limit if not reduce the voice of tangata whenua in all areas of this nations governance. It comes from those who are financing ACT, and it would be interesting to see a true list of the names behind that funding.

It is pure, unadulterated racism.

[Wainuiguy]

Funny how wanting all people to be treated and judged the same is racist - yet setting up systems and policies based solely on race isn't. Weird.

The Treaty has been twisted and manipulated into something it was never intended to be.

[Lilith7]

There is only one intent behind this drive towards the referendum, to limit if not reduce the voice of tangata whenua in all areas of this nations governance. It comes from those who are financing ACT, and it would be interesting to see a true list of the names behind that funding.

It is pure, unadulterated racism.

Absolutely & if David Seymour had even a vestige of conscience, then he'd be ashamed of himself. But those of that party seem to  lack the conscience most of us have in wanting fair treatment for everyone.
That, or they utterly fail to understand the difference between equality & equity - or perhaps pretend not to understand because its convenient for them to do so. I'd be inclined to suspect that Don Brash would be involved. Attempting to limit options for others while claiming not to be racist is right up his street after all.

https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/f...5_2021.pdf

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Funny how wanting all people to be treated and judged the same is racist - yet setting up systems and policies based solely on race isn't.  Weird.

The Treaty has been twisted and manipulated into something it was never intended to be.

Rubbish. Seriously, that is rubbish. Look at the people who have been instrumental in bringing the Treaty into our 21st century world, and I challenge you to find a single one of them to be of dubious charcter, morals, ethics, or standing. Australia has no Treaty and look at their community. Canada, America... So many examples of colonised territories where the first peoples have been subjugated, exploited, and pretty much written off, cultures, faiths and futures. We are blessed to have the Treaty to give us guidance - and plenty of room to debate.

Where a single factor - like race, or gender, or age, or culture, or faith - means a person can be legally deprived of the same human rights as any other, especially the majority population, then that has to be balanced by affirmative action to correct that deprivation.

If you saw a child being beaten in the street, would you not intervene?

[Lilith7]

Its convenient for some though, to claim that Maori are somehow getting 'special treatment' & ignore that what's happening is an attempt to make sure that we're all getting closer to having equity for everyone.
Which is what ACT appears to be doing for reasons best known to those in the ACT party.

[Olive]

Its convenient for some though, to claim that Maori are somehow getting 'special treatment' & ignore that what's happening is an attempt to make sure that we're all getting closer to having equity for everyone.
Which is what ACT appears to be doing for reasons best known to those in the ACT party.

Seymour seems to be obsessional about several issues,  but particularly in his total denial of the effects of colonisation.   He talks as if colonisation didn't happen and I'm sure the local news media could do more to unpick this convenient blind spot.

Has Seymour ever been interviewed by a Māori journalist?   I don't follow his interviews as he makes me feel ill.

[Lilith7]

Its convenient for some though, to claim that Maori are somehow getting 'special treatment' & ignore that what's happening is an attempt to make sure that we're all getting closer to having equity for everyone.
Which is what ACT appears to be doing for reasons best known to those in the ACT party.

Seymour seems to be obsessional about several issues,  but particularly in his total denial of the effects of colonisation.   He talks as if colonisation didn't happen and I'm sure the local news media could do more to unpick this convenient blind spot.

Has Seymour ever been interviewed by a Māori journalist?   I don't follow his interviews as he makes me feel ill.

I saw the interview Moana did with him recently; it was the second & since in the first they'd both lost the plot slightly & talked over each other, they'd agreed not to do so again. Its probably still available on Maori TV, Te Ao is the programme I think.

So it was David Seymour talking in a very controlled tone, with Moana also being extremely careful not to talk over him. I'm not sure how she managed such a feat of self control, particularly when he evaded questions by subject changing - but she did seem to be blinking a hell of a lot. The woman deserves a medal imo.

[jim157]

Its convenient for some though, to claim that Maori are somehow getting 'special treatment' & ignore that what's happening is an attempt to make sure that we're all getting closer to having equity for everyone.
Which is what ACT appears to be doing for reasons best known to those in the ACT party.

Seymour seems to be obsessional about several issues,  but particularly in his total denial of the effects of colonisation.   He talks as if colonisation didn't happen and I'm sure the local news media could do more to unpick this convenient blind spot.

Has Seymour ever been interviewed by a Māori journalist?   I don't follow his interviews as he makes me feel ill.

Deleted [Rule 2f & 2h]

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Hmmm, minus their lands, minus their power, minus their ability to feed their families, and minus their culture and language.

Yup, they're certainly better off. In the opinion of the few.

[Lilith7]

Seymour seems to be obsessional about several issues,  but particularly in his total denial of the effects of colonisation.   He talks as if colonisation didn't happen and I'm sure the local news media could do more to unpick this convenient blind spot.

Has Seymour ever been interviewed by a Māori journalist?   I don't follow his interviews as he makes me feel ill.

Deleted [Rule 2f & 2h]

Why yes of course!  It must have been absolutely wonderful for them to have been invaded, have land taken & be infected with various previously unknown diseases, slaughtered with what were then technically advanced weapons & have their entire way of life forever altered. 
No doubt they enjoyed it every bit as much as our ancestors loved every minute of the Roman invasion & occupation.

I've yet to come across anyone advocating for a return to pre European life for Maori, (though apparently racists wouls relish it) since what IS actually wanted is fair treatment, equity.

And btw if you do a bit of reading you'll find that Maori were considerably better off than 'subsistence' level.

[SueDonim]

Funny how wanting all people to be treated and judged the same is racist - yet setting up systems and policies based solely on race isn't.  Weird.

The Treaty has been twisted and manipulated into something it was never intended to be.

This is exactly right. The origin of the treaty was in a world so much simpler than today yet it's being applied to all sorts of things that it really has no relevance to. ACT is trying to remedy that by defining it and then having a referendum to ratify the plan if it goes ahead. See https://www.act.org.nz/act_proposes_refe...governance. 

At the end of the day, we need to help those who need help, and not keep giving millions of dollars to the greedy who line their own pockets with it and don't pass it on to where it's needed. We need more people like Tommy Wilson,  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty...52QNOHFMY/ and https://sunlive.co.nz/news/262684-homele...ealed.html. Giving without taking and quietly getting on with doing productive things to make people's lives better.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Really?

Seems to me this morning's Webworm from David Farrier hit the nail on the head. Conservatives are a bunch of scaredy cats, deeply worried for their own status quo, and desperately seeking a portal back to the 50s...

[king1]

I've always felt that Treaty settlements are just that, settlements. We negotiate with the representatives of the tribe and compensate for past grievances...

New Zealand's purpose in providing the settlements is to draw a line in the sand to be able to say that we have righted the wrongs, in a fair and equitable manner. In Full and Final Settlement so to speak...

It is not an investment - it is not a redistribution of wealth - it is not a favour or backhander to Maori representatives. It is a line in the sand...

What happens with the money after that is of no concern to anyone else, other than members of the said tribes... After settlements are paid it is not our money - we have no claim to it, we have no say over how it is spent, it is not our problem.

IMO they are welcome to do what they like with it - some will invest it wisely, some tribal leaders will be greedy, some won't 'trickle down' settlement money, some tribes will probably end up in court because of fraud or mismanagement.

But New Zealand has made good on past grievances, we have drawn the line in the sand and as a society, move on somewhat more united because of it... Of course there will always be those that just feel like this money is a handout for Maori...

[Olive]

I've always felt that Treaty settlements are just that, settlements.  We negotiate with the representatives of the tribe and compensate for past grievances...

New Zealand's purpose in providing the settlements is to draw a line in the sand to be able to say that we have righted the wrongs, in a fair and equitable manner.  In Full and Final Settlement so to speak...

It is not an investment - it is not a redistribution of wealth - it is not a favour or backhander to Maori representatives.  It is a line in the sand...

What happens with the money after that is of no concern to anyone else, other than members of the said tribes...  After settlements are paid it is not our money - we have no claim to it, we have no say over how it is spent, it is not our problem.

IMO they are welcome to do what they like with it - some will invest it wisely, some tribal leaders will be greedy, some won't 'trickle down' settlement money, some tribes will probably end up in court because of fraud or mismanagement. 

But New Zealand has made good on past grievances,  we have drawn the line in the sand and as a society, move on somewhat more united because of it... Of course there will always be those that just feel like this money is a handout for Maori...

Well said, and it needs to be said more often these days.   I am sick and tired of the way that ACT and other far right organisations promote the concept of treaty settlements being a category of social welfare benefit.   Treaty settlements are settlements to redress past wrongs, and once the money is paid over it is up to the recipients to make their own choices about their use of it.

[Lilith7]

I've always felt that Treaty settlements are just that, settlements.  We negotiate with the representatives of the tribe and compensate for past grievances...

New Zealand's purpose in providing the settlements is to draw a line in the sand to be able to say that we have righted the wrongs, in a fair and equitable manner.  In Full and Final Settlement so to speak...

It is not an investment - it is not a redistribution of wealth - it is not a favour or backhander to Maori representatives.  It is a line in the sand...

What happens with the money after that is of no concern to anyone else, other than members of the said tribes...  After settlements are paid it is not our money - we have no claim to it, we have no say over how it is spent, it is not our problem.

IMO they are welcome to do what they like with it - some will invest it wisely, some tribal leaders will be greedy, some won't 'trickle down' settlement money, some tribes will probably end up in court because of fraud or mismanagement. 

But New Zealand has made good on past grievances,  we have drawn the line in the sand and as a society, move on somewhat more united because of it... Of course there will always be those that just feel like this money is a handout for Maori...

There will always also be those who actually prefer that we not help those in need, for whatever deeply strange ideas they manage to come up with.


We may be doing it slowly but we are at least trying to make reparation where needed & if it wasn't for the treaty then we might be going down the Australian path.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

The only party pushing this suggestion has minority support. To allow it to progress would be a case of the tail wagging the dog.

[Lilith7]

I'd like to think that as a country, we have more sense than that & that David Seymour & Co will be given thast message. Preferably very loudly & clearly.

[C_T_Russell]

Funny how wanting all people to be treated and judged the same is racist - yet setting up systems and policies based solely on race isn't.  Weird.

The Treaty has been twisted and manipulated into something it was never intended to be.

Rubbish. Seriously, that is rubbish. Look at the people who have been instrumental in bringing the Treaty into our 21st century world, and I challenge you to find a single one of them to be of dubious charcter, morals, ethics, or standing. Australia has no Treaty and look at their community. Canada, America... So many examples of colonised territories where the first peoples have been subjugated, exploited, and pretty much written off, cultures, faiths and futures. We are blessed to have the Treaty to give us guidance - and plenty of room to debate.

Where a single factor - like race, or gender, or age, or culture, or faith - means a person can be legally deprived of the same human rights as any other, especially the majority population, then that has to be balanced by affirmative action to correct that deprivation.

If you saw a child being beaten in the street, would you not intervene?

Why is the maori party so hell bent on reversing colonization then?
That seems to be their end goal.
Maori are lucky they have a treaty, most countries never had such an agreement.
Colonization was inevitable, and I doubt they would be any better off had Dutch explorers colonized new zealand.
Christianity taught the Maori peace and ended years of fighting and cannabilism.
Anyone would think they would be better off left running around in grass skirts and no health system, roads, electricity, etc etc.

[Praktica]

Rubbish. Seriously, that is rubbish. Look at the people who have been instrumental in bringing the Treaty into our 21st century world, and I challenge you to find a single one of them to be of dubious charcter, morals, ethics, or standing. Australia has no Treaty and look at their community. Canada, America... So many examples of colonised territories where the first peoples have been subjugated, exploited, and pretty much written off, cultures, faiths and futures. We are blessed to have the Treaty to give us guidance - and plenty of room to debate.

Where a single factor - like race, or gender, or age, or culture, or faith - means a person can be legally deprived of the same human rights as any other, especially the majority population, then that has to be balanced by affirmative action to correct that deprivation.

If you saw a child being beaten in the street, would you not intervene?

Why is the maori party so hell bent on reversing colonization then?
That seems to be their end goal.
Maori are lucky they have a treaty, most countries never had such an agreement.
Colonization was inevitable, and I doubt they would be any better off had Dutch explorers colonized new zealand.
Christianity taught the Maori peace and ended years of fighting and cannabilism.
Anyone would think they would be better off left running around in grass skirts and no health system, roads, electricity, etc etc.

So speaks the colonialist...