ACT finally ignite their Orewa Speech & the Left should be very nervous


There was a moment about a week ago that I felt a sense of political relief.

Labour had finally signalled that they would kick the Hate Speech landmine into touch by not passing any legislation before the election.

This after multiple private warnings to Labour that the only winner in a free speech debate would be ACT and that our activist base could be counted on to be so alienatingly woke that the middle would recoil electorally in fear into the wide open arms of the right once the middle understood that the Woke were triggered into seeing disagreement on social media as persecution hate crimes.

I feared ACT would gain enormous power from a Free Speech fight while exposing the more puritan and cultish extremes of our special cancel culture warriors.

That Labour had begrudgingly agreed and quietly ‘parked’ it was of enormous relief as it allowed the protections that are required for minority groups to be built without starting a culture war! Everyone in a liberal progressive democracy deserves the same agency. Muslims, Queer or Trans people shouldn’t feel abused and threatened or frightened of simply being in public.  Graeme Edgeler has written extensively upon this and makes excellent points on how we could balance freedom of speech with the right to not feel threatened. The debate must be focused on anti-harassment, not free speech! It must also be focused on better public broadcasting and more regulations on social media (including taxes to fund that journalism) to stop the algorithms from weaponising debate.

So I felt immense relief that we wouldn’t be handing ACT political ammunition they could use in the increasingly polarised 2023 election campaign.

The relief evaporated yesterday with ACTs astonishing broadside on biculturalism…

New ACT Party policy branded ‘divisive’ and ‘bigoted’ by Māori Party

TDB Recommends

A new ACT Party policy calling for “a referendum on co-governance” has been branded “divisive”, “bigoted” and “appealing to racists” by the Māori Party.

ACT leader David Seymour has proposed that the next Government should pass legislation “defining the Principles of the Treaty [of Waitangi]” and then hold a referendum on whether it should become law.

“This is what we did this with the End of Life Choice Act, Parliament passed the law and the people ratified it at referendum,’’ he said.

“The great promise of New Zealand is that everyone’s equal. For generations people have travelled long distances to give their children a better tomorrow in this little country where everyone gets an equal chance.

“Today, Labour is trying to make New Zealand an unequal society on purpose. It believes there are two types of New Zealanders. Tangata whenua, who are here by right, and tangata tiriti who are lucky to be here.”


To date David’s race baiting has been all smart arsed under graduate garden variety bigotry.

He’s called for a bullshit law to strip the Treaty out of legislation when he knows and I know and you all know that he could never ever do that because it would start a race war in NZ.

Game it out:

  • David Seymour cuts a deal with National in 2023 and launches its purge of every Maori political win since the Treaty was signed.
  • Shutting down every co-governance arrangement would provoke absolute outrage within Māoridom and spark a vast number of immediate legal cases which would jam down any legislative process as every single decision made after Parliament passed  the law ending co-governance would become challenged. Political protests would erupt around the country and local councils would find local resistance as Māori groups universally set up occupations of shared governance assets.
  • Likewise, abolishing Māori seats would ignite enormous protests, many of which would quickly escalate into violence. The UN would criticise NZ snuffing out indigenous voting rights and we would face global condemnation.
  • The New Government would then attempt to find anyone within Maoridom who would willingly negotiate new Treaty ‘provisions’ with them. No one within Māoridom would willingly negotiate these and so the New Government, while dealing with increasingly violent weekly protests in the street, would announce that they are universally negotiating these new provisions on behalf of Māoridom. The news that not only has the New Government ended co-governance and abolished the Maori seats but are also now redefining the entire Treaty by themselves inspires all out violent protest and the New Government respond with increasing use of special terror laws and paramilitary Police to keep a lid on the escalating fury within Māoridom at the loss of their political rights.
  • Increasingly global media attention is scathing towards the New Government.
  • Donald Trump calls the New Government ‘wise’.
  • While ending co-governance, abolishing Maori seats AND renegotiating the entire Treaty on their own, the New Government then announces that the Waitangi Tribunal is being ended. This causes an eruption of anger within Maoridom that manages to eclipse the current rage and entire regions are now in open revolt.
  • Before the New Government are even in a position to remove consultation processes, Maori customary rights and any Māori funding, the country is plunged into a full blown race war which the New Government are not able to control.
  • Vast chunks of the military refuse to open fire on a public demonstration after the New National/ACT Government order them to.

So David has been promising red meat fantasies to an angry white electorate which he knows he can’t really ever give them which makes his proclamations seem like jokes when people are actually hurting.

But this, oh sweet Jesus, he’s found his Orewa Speech moment.

Calling for a referendum on co-governance, a concept that hasn’t really been explained by the Government while the activist Left are constantly looking for targets to proclaim holy woke war against is the spark that will ignite a terrible political backlash.

Previously David was promising tricks, but as the economy tanks, as people’s pain is open for manipulation, the sanctimonious beauty of calling for ‘debate’ on the attempts to repair the damage to the minority from the majority will take a terrifying life of its own.

David doesn’t understand the forces he is about to let loose.

I believe co-governance is a strength, not a weakness!

In my entire 48 years of life, I as a Pakeha male have never once been penalised in any way shape or form by any measure to help Maori!

I don’t see co-governance as the apartheid some see it as.

Calling He Puapua ‘a secret agenda’ is disingenuous to the words ‘agenda’, ‘secret’ and ‘a’.

The idea that a barely read wish list of indigenous hopes and aspirations that could live up to the promise of the Treaty would ever get fully implemented is Trump like in its delusion of imaginary white fears.

An upper house 50-50 split between Pakeha and Māori to decide Treaty Legislation has been an idea I’ve been arguing for years now!

For a majority MMP Government that can barely build houses to suddenly transform into a super hero for Indigenous rights who manages to overnight re-write the entire constitutional framework of NZ by stealth is so farcical in its possible threat delivery that  you may as well imagine a child with a water pistol up against a laser guided Jet fighter.

He Puapua is a wish list of hopes and aspirations, it is not a secret blueprint for the takeover of a country by radical Māori, to attempt to frame it as such is bordering on QAnon conspiracy fantasy.

Likewise with 3 Waters and the claim it’s Māori stealing the water.

We wouldn’t be having discussion over who owns the water of John Key hadn’t sold our hydro assets!

Māori are a break peddle on neoliberalism and their views can ensure privatisation and foreign ownership stops!

The Treaty of Waitangi, and a Māori worldview are taking a greater role in shaping how we interact with the world

For decades, the Treaty of Waitangi has formed a part of New Zealand’s approach to trade. Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta is kicking it up a notch. National Correspondent Lucy Craymer explains.

When the epochal Uruguay Round of global trade talks was happening almost four decades ago, New Zealand’s chief negotiator had a premonition.

Tim Groser reckoned the global trade arrangements being formed might – in ways he could not anticipate – come into conflict with the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1986, with a Labour Government led by David Lange in office, and vast economic and social reforms sweeping change across the nation at a breakneck speed, the modern significance of Te Tiriti was only starting to come into view.

“We could see a potential political problem arising whereby people would want to do things that we couldn’t quite foresee, in respect to the treaty,” Groser says. “We needed to avoid trade agreements getting in the way of that.”

The negotiation brought about the biggest reform to global trade ever and led to the creation of the World Trade Organisation. A clause was included allowing New Zealand to meet its treaty obligations, even if this meant breaching the global agreement.

Groser says it went through with no controversy and little publicity, even in New Zealand.

“I don’t think a single country raised a question let alone an objection. It’s not surprising. Why would they? Countries have bigger fish to fry,” he says.

A version of this clause, which allows the government to deliver on Te Tiriti ahead of its free trade obligations, has been included in every agreement since.

Most Pakeha don’t know that the Treaty is our out clause in free trade deals.

We can side track the exploitation by global corporations using the Treaty!

For me, I love the Treaty because of the relationship of responsibility it immediately sets up between the Crown and its people. I believe the Treaty needs to be expanded to all NZers and not just Maori because it sets out the obligations of the Crown to protect the rights of its people. We deserve as a nation to entrench the Treaty as the basis of our constitution so we can force Governments to protect our rights rather than strip us of them.

Pakeha want to gloss over the theft and confiscation of indigenous lands because it’s a shameful denial of the promise of a Treaty between two peoples and when you consider the paltry compensation that has been paid back to Maori via the Waitangi Tribunal, it’s a mere $1.4 Billion.

$1.4 Billion for confiscating the majority of NZ??? What is most egregious is that some Pakeha have the audacity to claim that pathetic reparation is a ‘gravy train’.

One of the problems with NZ politics is that we have a unicameral Parliament, that means we just have one chamber with no upper house. This means NZs Parliament is one of the most powerful Parliaments in the world. It allows for legislation to be read straight into law and is one of the reasons why the neoliberal revolution was so ruthless and impossible to reverse.

I think one solution to the Waitangi Tribunal ruling is to consider a NZ Parliament Upper House that has 50-50 representation between Maori and Pakeha. If Sovereignty was never signed away, then the Government of today has a responsibility beyond paltry compensation for past injustices , it must provide real power sharing solutions.

Having a 50-50 Upper House with the power to delay legislation that was not in the best interests of the Nation when it comes to Treaty issues would stop Government’s from fire sales of national assets and prevent things like the Foreshore and Seabed legislation from becoming law.

An Upper House would be seen as a guardian of the Treaty for the maintenance of public well being over private gain, it would show real power sharing and for Pakeha, it would represent a political body that protects their public interests as much as Maori interests.

Now do I for one second believe we can have an actual debate on these very important topics?

No. Fucking. Way!

The activist Left will go into a spinning death feeding frenzy of outrage while those who secretly burn crosses will have a field day under the fake veneer of ‘debate’.

This is going to be a cluster fuck of madness that Seymour will not be able to contain once he releases it.

The only hope we have is to actually step up and debate the issue in good faith because co-governance IS a unique strength that can build us, but we need the skills to debate without alienating which will play into the hands of extremists.

Comrades, I don’t think we are ready for this Jelly.


Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media


  1. “…..I believe the Treaty needs to be expanded to all NZers and not just Maori because it sets out the obligations of the Crown to protect the rights of its people. We deserve as a nation to entrench the Treaty as the basis of our constitution so we can force Governments to protect our rights rather than strip us of them.”

    Have for years said that anyone born here (irrespective of race) is tangata whenua (as interpreted – born of this land) and are entitled to have the same level of feeling and attachment to the land as Maori do. Problem is that radical Maori do not agree with this premise. So you will always have the political stalemate.

    You will always thus have the potential for race separation.

    Interesting radical side discussion in regards who can be considered as indigenous people of New Zealand. By UN charter definition it is the first people to arrive here.

    So Kupe and the people of Ngapuhi are the true and only indigenous people of New Zealand. Any people (of any race) arriving after by canoe, boat, ship or plane are Tauiwi.

    Quite how this fits into the whole treaty plan of lumping all Maori as indigenous people, and separate from all other Tauiwi, can be argued from a Ngapuhi perspective as being disingenuous.

        • Great research and post Diane.

          I’d love to see the debate between Seymour, a bastion of the right and a Jackson, bastion of the left.
          John Campbell should be the bastion of the middle and adjudicator.
          Then have a debate between Luxon and Ardern about why Seymour’s referendum should be on the 2023 ballot?
          John Campbell should be the bastion of the middle and adjudicator.

  2. As long as he goes after the CRT woke mowrees and the nark mowree hotline run by woke mowrees. I’m all good with that.

    • Do you mean Willie Jackson Tane?

      Oh, you want a debate about co-governance now do you, David Seymour?
      Māori have been waiting 182 years for someone to come forward and negotiate in good faith the promise of the Treaty, and you’ve self-declared your desire to be the medium for that debate!
      Wonderful news!
      I applaud your demand to debate co-governance and I relish the opportunity for debate with you David.
      I’ll debate you anywhere you like David, every Town Hall, RSA, Marae, School Hall, University, Techs, Union Venues, Tea Rooms and knitting circles from Cape Reinga to Stewart Island.
      Name the venue David. You want to do in your home electorate of Epsom? How about we do one there, one at my Marae in South Auckland and the third one in Wellington?

  3. When did we ever vote FOR co governance ?

    “Co governance” is a euphemism for Labours secret implementation of their undemocratic disenfranchisement of NZdrs electoral mandate.

    The next election will be decided on the single issue of co governance: all the rest is irrelevant noise.

        • It’s not whataboutism at all if you listen to Chris F. Clearly both “sides” have been dealing with this issue as they should be, rather than shying away from it. No one said it was easy. Half the sentiment in the media seems to imply this something labour just came up with.

          • The co-governance spoken about had the democratically elected body overseeing the functioning of the co-governance body. Not what Labour is doing.

      • Chris Finlayson isn’t an MP anymore and his attitudes are not necessarily a reflection of National more broadly. He is from Wellington for a start.
        Listening to the interview, he is supportive of the debate and only doubtful of the proposed referendum on the basis of it being potentially inflammatory. It’s hard to see how the discussion would be good but a secret ballot not or what point the discussion would be with no implications for policy. Typical elitist, perhaps he thinks all that’s needed is a bit of a chat, get it off our chests and we all just go along and do what we’re told
        I don’t think we should shy away from something as fundamental as this just because it will be uncomfortable and confronting for some. A sort of drifting acquiescence would suit some no doubt, but sometimes things need to be said. This is one of those times.

  4. Traditionally the Left fought for the right for equal representation for all citizens regardless of gender, race, income, sexuality etc. One vote of equal value for all. Much of NZ still believes in this, the woke and the Maori Party (who have publicly declared their dislike for democracy) are the exceptions.

    • ahhhh but how do you give power to the iwi-ocracy if their people can’t be arsed to vote..?
      easy peasy chocolate squeezy – legislation.

  5. We can side track the exploitation by global corporations using the Treaty!

    That alone could prove to be a life-saver in the future, for our tiny nation of 5 million.

    • Seems as likely to work as the woke warm, dry housing, developer led policy, but woke can keep telling themselves that, as they grasp at straws.

      Weird how Maori have billions of dollars in investment themselves, but don’t seem to be putting any money into solving the Maori poverty problem either.

      It doesn’t really matter what colour or race you identify with, power corrupts, and the same will happen with Co governance.

      It will give a few Maori at the top more money, and everyone else goes into further poverty as the prices escalate and quality of everything in NZ decrease. Then there is a further wealth divide.

      Now sure that making water ‘more diverse’ by allowing Chinese and Russian water bottlers to take from the NZ aquifers worked out in helping NZ, the community, and the poor here. It did the opposite.

      Maori fishing rights, did not create Maori jobs for Maori, they use Russian and Asian slavers flying tax free, human rights free flags to do their fishing.

      Only clear regulation will help and they can’t even do this with supermarkets in NZ.

      Kiwi shopper saves 35 per cent ordering groceries from Australia

      Again you can save money online shopping from OZ but the cost to the environment is immense from our governments inability to regulate and prosecute properly here.

      Lazy government lawyers like to dream up more legislation but not so keen to get their hands dirty and regulate our economy from monopoly behaviour.

      I see they are doing another ‘cartel’ advertising campaign, (like last year), too lazy to prosecute anybody!

      It’s all about education people, not enforcement! Working so well for NZ.

      So of course we have more poverty here.

      • Completely agree education will fix most of our problems. Seems governments of both colors are happy to spend 100000 a year looking after a prisoner but want education to survive on cake stalls and overseas pupils that leave the country with their skills. Maori are at the bottom of the heap because of slack parents who do not get their kids to school.

        • A vote for ACT will sort that out Trevor.
          Charter schools and voucher systems will incentivize parents to send their kids to school, or not get the vouchers.
          We could also cut their benefits if they don’t send the kids to school.

          • Charter schools have been proven time and time again to be a rort. Hell, even Bill Gates doesn’t support them anymore because they have had that much bad publicity.

            • There’s over 5000 home schooled children now and David Seymour is offering an alternative with Charter Schools. Or a chartered society of homeschooling parents.

              There are parents now opting out of schools in their area because of being forced to go to a school they don’t like because of zoning.

              It’s time for more charter schools and for people to vote ACT if they want the choice to home school and the choice to opt out of a failing education system that couldn’t even teach kids to read!!

              As well as a referendum on co-governance, why not a referendum on charter schools and their benefits to people who have lost faith in government and lost faith in state education. It’s OK for parents who can afford private schools, but what about the middle income and poor, who want quality education for their taxes paid.

              Surely a voucher system would help homeschoolers use their tax money to educate their own children better than the state can? Look at the shambles that government’s response to mandates caused?

      • naw it’s about enforcement..

        NZ is good on aspirational rules but shit at applying them and that’s across the board…still we can feel good about ourselves..just look at the rule book, ha

    • That’s disengenuous of Martyn, both the China and UK trade deals have proved how utterly sidelined ToW is in real world negotiations.

  6. “The only hope we have is to actually step up and debate the issue in good faith”

    Well yes Martyn and people have been trying to do that, on the other hand we’ve got people that insist that this massive change to our governance should not be discussed, that the people should have no direct say in it’s implementation, that the whole thing should be decided behind closed doors by those with an interest (worthy and otherwise) in it’s implementation, that the people should just accept it as a fait a complete. How about no!
    Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: ““This isn’t a debate that should be had in 2022, or actually any year. ”
    What? No debate about the idea that “all citizens of New Zealand have the same political rights and duties” and “all political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot”. Ever?
    Even discussion is racist. Matt Tukaki
    “No David, I will not enter into a contest of ideas with you or your party. I will not enter into a debate over whether or not I have the right to stand up and push back against you, Mr Seymour,”

    So no, looks like a proper debate is the last thing the separatists want. Now why would that be, perhaps because it’s a deeply flawed, mad, bad and dangerous idea altogether?

    • David it might also help, along with the discussion, that we acknowledge there have already been examples of co governance under National as I said above with that link to Chris Finlaysons’ interview on RNZ. It does not seem like this is a totally new concept of the left leaning. Unless he Chris F was being disingenuous

    • Nope. This a great idea and revolutionary. Old whities need to swallow their racism, learn some Maori culture and just think how many of our colonial problems could be firstly, recognised then addressed with down to earth change for the good of all people. All of us, not just Maori. All of us. Disregard this opportunity if your racist and wealthy. Which I’m absolutely sure is a hell of a lot of NZ.

      • Yes it certainly revolutionary, whether it’s “a great idea” is another question. Obviously merely being revolutionary doesn’t imply great idea, usually quite the opposite. The way political power is distributed along ethno/cultural/religious lines in Lebanon is directly causal to the dysfunctional dystopia they are today. I can’t think of any encouraging examples. You do have to wonder, if even the proponents are unwilling to engage in open debate, just how great an idea it really is.

        It’s not about cultural acceptance and no one is seriously suggesting that is anything but good. I don’t know if people are informed or have had the chance to develop an understanding on this through but I’m inclined to doubt that many, once they understand the implications, would really want co governance, and its objective of a separate, racially defined parliament by 2040. There are a lot of questions that need asking.

        One thing not being discussed is the potential for conflicts of interest leading to corruption. One would have to be hopelessly naïve to expect that, for instance, Ngai Tahu with huge interests in tourism, farming, fisheries, forestry, commercial and residential property, horticulture and so on are going to be impartial arbitrators of the resources directly required for their own commercial interests. Crony capitalism at it’s worst? What measures would be required to ensure their opaque mix of familial, tribal, communal, racial, cultural and commercial connections doesn’t lead to the sort of corruption that typifies Lebanon? Would the normal requirements for transparency and consistency be dismissed as “racist”?

        • “One would have to be hopelessly naïve to expect that, for instance, Ngai Tahu with huge interests in tourism, farming, fisheries, forestry, commercial and residential property, horticulture and so on are going to be impartial arbitrators of the resources directly required for their own commercial interests.”

          And there you have the elephant in the room – or is it the taniwha in the ruma. Many young Kiwis (and more than a few who are old enough to know better) have been indoctrinated into the belief that ethnicity imbues certain New Zealanders with “kaitiaki” status – its their ethnicity that’s important, not their actions.

          “Kaitiakitanga” is a great front for iwi business interests.

  7. We already have co-governance.
    Maori have the right to vote just as does everyone else.
    Anything beyond that is pandering to the Maori elite and should be scrapped.

  8. “The great promise of New Zealand is that everyone’s equal. For generations people have travelled long distances to give their children a better tomorrow in this little country where everyone gets an equal chance.
    Are we going to continue believing and voting on myths and ethereal promises as if they were substantial? They may be aspirational, at some point in time for many people who prefer them to be at a far distance.
    Lake Alice was not catering for the truly needy, those with wealth and political aspirations not necessarily in that order.

  9. I guess that is the problem with the ‘no debate’ culture currently deployed by the Government, anyone can simply start debating it and run with it.

  10. Steady on comrade…the good news is that time waits for no one, so those more likely to freak out or support the ACT line are getting lesser in numbers with each boomer funeral.

    My Pākehā son has a core group of a dozen or so friends and only one is Euro/white.

    But the provinces can still be pretty reactionary so there will be some rark ups there if ACT pushes this line. Personally I think the Chicago School bed wetters should just be slapped down–but really I suppose it is better to have them included in an MMP system to see what they are up to!

    • Tiger Mountain: “those more likely to freak out or support the ACT line are getting lesser in numbers”
      Your son and his friends would be in favour of ethnicity informing their relationship? Really? And the partners in mixed marriages?
      Seems to me, in a healthy relationship, that race shouldn’t even come into it, some good natured ribbing aside. I suggest, as their friendship indicates, that if you asked them, they would find the idea abhorrent and the proposal for ethnicity to become a political class likewise. What would they, and others of their generation choose?

      Here are the choices: (from Elizabeth Rata: Ethno-Nationalism or Democratic-Nationalism: Which way ahead for New Zealand?) ” Ethno-nationalism has political categories based on racial classification – the belief that our fundamental identity (personal, social and political) is fixed in our ancestry. Here the past determines the future. Identity, too, is fixed in that past. In contrast, democratic-nationalism has one political category – that of citizenship – justified by the shared belief in a universal human identity.

    • This is delusional.
      My wife is an immigrant and agrees wholeheartedly with me that we are 2nd class citizens based on the woke interpretation of the treaty.

  11. It’s almost like Brooke Van Velden’s comments about the teaching of New Zealand history were a nice little appetiser for Seymours announcement. She sounded just like Ted Cruz.

    • Racist enablers, helps justify abnormal right wing behaviour, don’t particularly like the guy and the ACT Party and it’s previous leadeers make me physically sick.

      • @Ngungukai Do you think Seymour will ban the teaching of NZ History if Seymour gets in with National?
        Or will he just cut out the Maori section of the new NZ History Syllabus and have European Settlers History only?

  12. Possibly a little extreme on the predicted outcomes but no question about the Owera tack by Act.
    The idea that Seymour doesn’t know what he’s doing is ludicrous – he knows exactly what he’s doing and so does Luxon. Act can go where National can’t and picking up the rump of anti-Maori and anti-PM voters with all of their ugliness and dysfunction is precisely what Act is there to do.
    It’s as predictable as clock work – every election is the same:
    National – lower taxes and pick on beneficiaries.
    Labour – moderate change without raising taxes and pick on beneficiaries.
    Act and the other parties are there to pick up votes outside the middle and Act in particular knows exactly where those votes are and how to get them.

  13. The hate speech is helping this…

    (From bomber)

    “None of this can be discussed in NZ because the Woke decry any mention of China in anything other than glowing terms as Xenophobic racism. Say something critical of China in NZ and it spawns a dozen columns on Stuff decrying anti-asian racism and hate for migrants etc etc etc.”

    Now you will also get the police at your door with their new legislation..

    “With China flexing its military muscle and chequebook diplomacy again, NZ must reconsider its avenues for influence in the Pacific.”

    The woke want more terrorists to able to freely come into NZ and take up resources that the woke feed off, more predatory capitalism in NZ with more profits going out of NZ, and nobody is allowed to debate it anymore because of NZ’s love of chequebook diplomacy and fear of standing up for anything (Not sure what happened to our nuclear free policy protesters – I guess they were cancelled as being too old and boomers and too white to be allowed a say like the kids for climate change not being allowed to protest anymore if they are white, or they are racist).

    Well of Course with that attitude, the woke cancelled Jacinda as being too white to rule, in fact Labour cancelled themselves with their love of far right anti freedom of speech masquerading as ‘hate speech’ which is more important to them than housing and medicine that the woke has made worse.

  14. Explaining is losing and I really can’t see how the left can explain this co-governance clap trap without ostracising at least 70% of the population

    It really is brilliant politics

    He’s also snookered National as they’ll have to have a position

    • Why is this a left issue Yeti? National have done a lot of work in this area too. The Auditor Generals report on these concepts came out in 2016 so it’s clearly has an extensive amount of work done.

      • The supposed left is currently running the show not national. When national runs the show again then it can be laid to their feet.

        • It’s not about laying anything at anyones feet. National clearly had some adults trying to deal with a complex issue, so good on them.

    • Dirty Politics operative Seymour’s racist dog-whistles have a lot of intended consequences.

      Dirty Politics Alt-Right Nuremberg Part Eins
      The alt-right Nuremberg NZ site has shown that there’s a racist, misogynist underbelly in NZ/AO. Right-wing shills and commentators on the Daily blog site, such as Sour Kraut, refuse to denounce it. The execution threats to Maori and Pasifica leaders, politicians, health experts and media, is reminiscent of ‘Hang Mike Pence’ by the alt-right MAGA Trumpers. Alt-right ‘we hate blacks and immigrants’ sentiment slogans such as “Let’s Take Back Control” and “We Want Our Country Back” from the alt-right Brexiteers are inherent in Seymour’s referendum ‘bottom-feeding-line’. Seymour’s anti-co-governance dog-whistle encapsulates an ACT appeals for votes from angry, white and racist males in the 2023 election. And let’s face it, Phillip Arps, is hardly going to want to go to a Milford Rotary meeting nor a Marae korero about co-governance, but he will probably vote for Seymour, rather than part-Maori Winston?

      Dirty Politics Alt-Right Nuremberg Part Zwei
      Seymour and Peters were the only two politicians to tiptoe through excrement of the Capitol Occupation-Convoy of hate, to give the middle finger to Mallard, Labour and the Act-Lite National Party. Hipango and Pugh pulled their female heads in, when they showed support for the convoy and occupation of hate. Dirty Politics needed to blow out Peters’ candle, to make Seymour’s burn brighter. There’s no loyalty from Dirty Politics Seymour, to a ‘Yes or No’ flibbertigibbet centre-right-winger like Peters.

      Dirty Politics gives the purple-right Groundswell some dark blue steel
      There’s nothing like a racist dog-whistle to enviagrate the semi-right, into hard-right Groundswellers. The anti-mandates rent-a-crowd diluted the: anti-3-waters; anti-fart-tax; ute-tax farmer messaging. Farmers did however, take on some alt-right MAGA messaging (Make Ardern Go Away) and “Stop ramming Maori language down our throats”. Born-to-rule, farmers are happy to strategically party vote ACT to keep New Zealand pale, male, stale and non-Green or non-Brown

      Dirty Politics shifts the centre-right, further to the right, and clearly away from Winston
      A non-binding referendum vote for Seymour castrates Winston Peters’s mountain oysters and drives a wooden stake though his 77 year old vampire, Biden-esque heart. It is also the right-of-centre vote more likely to go with National in a coalition, rather than the mercurial Winston, who has flirted with Labour and National. Let’s face it, the Blue-Lite Conservatives have been more ‘Wonk’ than ‘Woke’ and as useful to the right, as a Russian tank, with dairy-milk chocolate armour. Seymour’s gain, is Peters’ pain.

      Seymour’s Dirty Politics referendum cunning stunt de-powers Labour’s Maori Caucus
      Enough said.

      Seymour’s Dirty Politics referendum cunning stunt targets Jacinda Ardern

      There’s no way Labour would countenance ACT’s “bottom line” referendum and it wasn’t offered to Labour, only National.
      If ACT is the King or Queenmaker, Lex Luthor gets his reluctant coalition, with provisos.
      Luxon will obfuscate, squirm, dodge, prevaricate and fluff around the issue, but will “listen to the wool of the peopull of Nu Zuld and moit not evun need a coalishun if peopull of Nu Zuld give Nashnul a cleeyur majority over Labour, then I moit considur their non-binding refurendumb mandate. We should also add in a non-binding fleg referendum as well, and have a fleg that represents our hermut kungdum”

      And the winners, losers and questions of Seymour’s bottom-feeding referendum line?
      Alt-right’s ‘s Red and Green voting arrows and executed women and Maori and Pacifica leaders.
      Dirty politics and their new slogan. “Creating a paler, staler, maler, more polluted New Zealand!”
      Will Seymour’s final referendum for the Maori problem, be as popular as his Right to Die Bill?
      Will Sour Kraut denounce Nuremburg.NZ
      Will Nuremburg.NZ, Seymour and Sour Kraut be classified as Hate Speech

      If Seymour agrees with Collins, is it Dirty Politics?

      “When the Race Relations Commissioner floated the possibility of hate speech reforms in 2017, ACT Party leader David Seymour argued there were already adequate laws controlling defamation or inciting violence: “Those things are already illegal. Anything further is actually censorship and we should be just as worried about the state starting to decide what is acceptable to say as we should be about people saying nasty things.”

      The insistence on a link to inciting violence being a prerequisite for curbing free speech has been repeated several times since the Government announced its intention to reform hate speech law after the Christchurch mosque attacks.

      Opposition leader Judith Collins has promised “the National Party will reverse any attempts Jacinda Ardern’s Government makes to criminalise speech beyond the threshold of ‘inciting violence’.””

      Am I allowed to call David Seymour a Dick?
      Will Dick Frizzell ever do a ‘David to Judith’ version of Mickey to Tiki to cement Dirty Politics’ links between David and/or Judith and/or Cam?

      So many questions, and so little time between now and the next snap election.

      • National’s leader Christopher Luxon has said no to a referendum on co-governance – for now – something likely coalition partner ACT has said is a bottom-line.

        And I quote Mike Judge March 26, 2022 at 5:06 pm
        Luxon will obfuscate, squirm, dodge, prevaricate and fluff around the issue, but will “listen to the wool of the peopull of Nu Zuld and moit not evun need a coalishun if peopull of Nu Zuld give Nashnul a cleeyur majority over Labour, then I moit considur their non-binding refurendumb mandate.

        So…a Bob (or Chris) each way and unequivocal “NO!”, and then a semi-unequivocal “for now”

        What is Luxon’s view on getting rid of the Maori Seats?

        Poor old John Key, giving himself a Will Smith self-slap atm for getting rid of Judith Collins and supporting Luxon.

  15. Good. Seymour has discovered his testicles again after going soft on wokebola. Bomber is spot on – the left has already started going feral on this and won’t be able to contain themselves and will be shown as what they are. Meanwhile Te Reo Fester will be dancing on a pin in the background.

    It deserves a grown up conversation – you just know it won’t

  16. tiger, well not all ‘the disgruntled’ are boomers (inaccurate and deliberately prejudicial label but hey ho) as evidenced by the rag tag nature of the beehive mob.

  17. Let’s have the referendum, let’s see if New Zealand does truly want co-governance. Debate what it would mean and let kiwis decide what happens moving forward. Trying to bring it in via stealth will destroy this government.

  18. There’s nothing anti-maori about Seymours proposal. Did he propose “maori can’t be part of governance”…no! He’s just anti-quota. We all should be. Quota is counterproductive. All governance of anything anywhere should be by relevant skills and qualifications. It should be ‘how good are you?…not ‘what colour are you?

    • Totally agree with S K and Mickey Boyle. This Government loves to sneak in changes by just doing it. That’s Arrogant considering between the lot of them boiling an egg could be a challenge. This country is already going bankrupt and co government plus an upper house would come at a high price. The price of a bigger trough would be astronomical.

      • The site Sour Kraut won’t denounce has more brown faces and women that are are “qualified” by being voted to be executed. Racists like Sour Kraut are voting Maori and Polynesian leaders, women and politicians

        I wondered why Sour Unkraut wouldn’t denounce Nuremberg’s alt-right racism and misogyny and reading this apartheid post by him it’s becoming crystal clear. Some are “born-to-rule” and others will die by being voted up an alt0right execution list.

  19. “For a majority MMP Government that can barely build houses to suddenly transform into a super hero for Indigenous rights who manages to overnight re-write the entire constitutional framework of NZ by stealth is so farcical in its possible threat delivery….”

    I would have agreed before the pandemic. Yet an MMP based government found a justification to over-ride the bill of rights by declaring an emergency that has extended for 2 years.

    Clear exit criteria* for mandates were never set, and people’s ability to obtain an exemption on medical or religious grounds was removed with nary a debate. Had their been a debate, it would most likely have been censored.

    You say changes to the fabric of society are impossible under MMP so we don’t need to worry. Yet Labour segregated society to the cheering of brown shirts who could now focus their fear of this Ebola-level virus (sarcasm) on the unwashed and unclean, demanding those people sacrifice their autonomy, and possibly their lives, to the collective. The final insult was to hold a gun to their head and declare “no jab, no job” is a choice. The issue was all about coercion, not choice.

    So, from my POV, your argument on those grounds fails.

    Co-governance is a tricky subject. I’m not necessarily against it, and bny that I mean I’m against it whilst our current parliamentary setup and weak protections of rights and principles of democracy are already threatened, but I am open to a conversation of what such a project might look like. I don’t think we, the born-in-NZ tangata whenua have been part of any such conversation. There is much discussion needed, and instead, decisions are happening around us without an understanding of clear limits and the appropriate checks and balances.

    *Exit criteria could have been things like (simplified as its just an example):
    -Mandates end when we hit 90% of the eligible population.
    -Different age groups have different requirements
    -Vax passes end when vaccines are proven NOT to stop the spread of infection.
    -Lockdowns can only be set when these factors are presents (list) and if any of those criteria drop below the threshold, the lockdown must end.

  20. “…& the Left should be very nervous”
    What ‘Left’ ?
    Our politics is a charade ( FYI: Charade. Noun. an absurd pretence intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance. “talk of unity was nothing more than a charade” )
    The politically primary objective, and no pun intended, is to keep our [primary industry] farmers walled in by debt and propaganda to perpetuate the sweet deal of our farmer’s on-going exploitation for pecuniary gain for them there fancy city folk. Aye Boys?
    That, is all that’s politically important. Everything else is art and bullshit.
    pecuniary/pɪˈkjuːnɪəri/adjective ; formal adjective: pecuniary;
    relating to or consisting of money. “he admitted obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception”
    Chloe Swarbrick should, absolutely should, wed our farmers to her Green Party ( As sole leader after shedding useless davidson and shaw ) by means of inducements in the form of promises of public inquiries. Then, get down to the vital business of farming regeneratively on a melting planet.
    The Guardian.
    Sound absurd? Dumb? Wacky? Then what must you think of Nob-Head luxon, a nasty little shit who’s cloaked himself in Christian piety to hide his evil intentions is describing those placed most at risk by his natzo gangster mate’s greedy shenanigans who sanction legitimised thievery as ‘bottom feeders’, or adern, The Lets Do This, Team of Five Million platitude spouter of meaningless one-liner brain farteries.
    noun: platitude; plural noun: platitudes. A remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful.
    Adern says blah, luxon says blah, seymour says blah, davidson and shaw say blah. Who gives a fuck?
    Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But when Chloe Swarbrick starts talking to our farmers? We’d better bloody listen.

    • Chloe could probably get a good share of the educated farmer vote as many farmers are conservationists, the Greens need to ditch their whacky left wing elements and start maturing into a credible long term party for the long term survival of NZ.

  21. “Vast chunks of the military refuse to open fire on a public demonstration after the New National/ACT Government order them to.”

    God your an idiot Bradbury.

    • Yet he can spell better than you, idiot.
      “God your an idiot Bradbury.”
      Try ‘God YOU’RE an idiot Bradbury.’ idiot.

    • Yet he can spell better than you, idiot.
      “God your an idiot Bradbury.”
      Try ‘God YOU’RE an idiot Bradbury.’ idiot.

    • You are obviously oblivious to the fact that about fifty percent of our military are Maori.

      God, you’re an idiot.

  22. I’m getting the impression.. yes, yes – it’s coming through..

    ..I get the impression that ‘Co-Governance’ means different things to different people. As an elector I’d like some townhall debates and lectures, otherwise I’d be voting in ignorance.

    I don’t like minorities being marginalized or vilified so I hope Act doesn’t foment such things. What I saw of David’s interview with Maiki Sherman didn’t bother me too much.

    David is seemingly willing to put his ideas out there and engage. I personally favor the least amount of government possible and maximum freedom. I don’t mind the Queen as head-of-state, but NZ should look seriously at our involvement with the UN.

  23. Any legislation that endorses racial segregation should be abolished. The US fought a civil war over this (well i know that isn’t really the actual cause of the war, but that is what ultimately happened). The idea that one group is “more equal” than others is Orwellian nonsense.

  24. Putin made 3 million Ukrainians leave Ukraine, Adrian Orr is making 2 million young kiwis leave NZ and Jacinda is party to their having to leave for some hope.

  25. Claire Trevett put it best…

    “Small parties’ ‘bottom lines’ are white noise in a drag race between National and Labour.”

  26. Just listened to Raf Manji, TOP leader, on News Hub and had my mind blown – a NZ politician standing up for beneficiaries – no if no buts – while justifying a UBI. This is a must watch for us disheartened middle class woke Marxists – if TOP get anywhere near power we will see genuine left wing economic policy in NZ!

    • TOPs policy is to steal (via a deemed annual rate of return on the family home) from those who worked all their lives to provide a home for their family & hand it out as a UBI to people who can’t be bothered getting out of bed.

      “The problem with socialists is that they eventually run out of other peoples money”.

      • Thanks RobbieWgtn for your reply and I understand your concerns about higher taxation and this will be a challenge for TOP at the election.

        I did some quick calculations on the IRD website:

        Someone earning 70K pays 14K in tax under the current system.
        Under TOPS tax proposal someone on 70K will pay 17.5K in tax.
        Someone on 50K pays 8K in tax per year under the current system.
        Under TOPS tax proposal someone on 50K will pay 11K in tax.
        These are not huge jumps in income tax though they could be more progressive.
        The biggest kicker will be the yearly land tax – that could be a steep ask for a lot of property owners.

        And if you’re worried about socialism I don’t think you need be – we are not talking about state ownership of the means of production here, but we are talking about wealth re-distribution and modernizing the economy to be more resilient to the future.
        There is also the potential for changing the nature of work and alleviating business of some of the social issues we put onto employers – such as holiday and sick pay or even regular hours – this could be a huge benefit to smaller business in particular.

        Those of us who’ve been lucky enough to work hard and acquire assets did so in a very different type of economy to the one being faced by young workers now and in the near future and this needs to be considered in economic policy.

        It takes great courage to look for and articulate a vision of something different than what we have now – that doesn’t mean TOP have the perfect answer but they are out there looking beyond the status quo.

        • When you are on 50.000 before tax having to pay an extra 3 grand in tax is a lot of money.
          “Someone on 50K pays 8K in tax per year under the current system.
          Under TOPS tax proposal someone on 50K will pay 11K in tax.”

          And that is why top failed the last time, that and tax Nanas/Poppas unproductive asset – their home, if they have one.

          “Those of us who’ve been lucky enough to work hard and acquire assets did so in a very different type of economy to the one being faced by young workers now and in the near future and this needs to be considered in economic policy.”

          Then start demanding that you start paying more taxes on the assets you acquired when times were easy and good.

          Has Gareth started paying income tax yet, or is he still playing the tax avoidance game, and keeping his homes empty because tenants are unruly and does he claim a business loss/tax rebate on these empty properties? Maybe we should tax houses that are kept empty on purpose by property speculators first?

          • I don’t know about Gareth’s tax affairs but I am someone who would be willing to pay more tax myself.
            I do agree with you about the 3K per year tax increase for someone on 50K – that is too much and a vote killer.
            Overall, though, I think TOP are onto it and leading us towards the economy of the future.

    • As someone having voted for TOP since their inception, I can say with some confidence I would NOT vote for them again.

      A UBI (the Big Kahuna) sounds wonderful, however if Covid has shown as anything, it’s that our rights can be tenuously constrained, in short:

      I think a flat-tax-rate of 33% is too much to take from workers. Granted in exchange every citizens receives the Basic Income, however:

      – Giving every citizens a UBI doesn’t produce more houses, apples, roads or anything. Granted you’re giving every citizen capital, but you’re also taxing the most productive at 33% and everybody is still chasing the same amount of goods.. maybe even less goods.

      – What about inflation? Your UBI suddenly doesn’t buy much but the government keeps taxing you 33%..?? Is the UBI tied to real inflation or the price of a mobile-phone-case (CPI)?

      – What happens if the government decides all citizens are equal but some are more equal than others? What happens when the government decides to cancel citizens, or decides to means test the UBI? Do people in prison get a UBI? People with warrants? New residents? People who sponsor questionable things? People that don’t go along with the next mandate?

      It would be a huge disadvantage for someone on a working visa, paying 33% tax to have to compete for a rental property with NZ citizens receiving a UBI. UBI or Universal Landlord Income?

      – UBI is flimflam legislation.. it descends into.. “tax free brackets”, “additional money for parents”, “exceptions for the disabled”, “retaining accommodation supplements”.. whatever. It soon turns into a beastly system in itself.

      In the end, laws and systems are OFTEN only as good as the people administering them. Look at America; I’m reticent to say they have Joe Biden and Kamala Harris “running-the-show”. There is a high chance America will sink under the Biden administration.

      NZ needs wise leaders before trying something like a UBI. It’s very rare to even have leaders that know the right things to do. Let me be clear, when I say wise I’m NOT talking about leaders that just know the right things to do – I’m talking about leaders that actually do the right things – rather than hold back to receive a paycheck.

      Not sold on TOP.

      • Thanks Zak. That is an excellent reply and you highlight valid economic risks and concerns.

        Higher taxes appear to be a political no go in this country so there is a big mountain to climb just to shift current attitudes towards taxation. One of the best arguments I can think of is investing in the future for our children and grandchildren. As taxes are cut we begin to lose current public services but even worse, future generations miss out on the infrastructure investment that needs to take place now in order to meet future economic and social needs.

        Thankyou Rob Muldoon for the hydro electric electricity I’m enjoying right now in 2022 and for raising taxes and building up masses of government debt in order to make it happen back in the 1970’s!

        The thing I find really interesting about the inflation argument is that it only crops up as a huge concern in specific parts of the economy. For example when Grant Robertson gave the nod to the reserve bank to dump $28 billion into the financial system in NZ – house prices rose by 30% across the country. Likewise in the stock market – inflated beyond the real economy multiple times over – and it continues to rise.

        Most economist are celebrating these areas of inflation as great things as are the middle class property and asset owners.

        Now consider what happens when wage and price inflation begin to emerge – suddenly there is panic and interest rates need to rise – as does unemployment.

        There is no question that price rises on common goods hurts those on low incomes and there is such a thing as a wage/price inflation spiral but are there different ways to manage this other then using interest rates alone to reduce money supply?

        It’s worth asking why do we always look to reduce economic demand by taking money out of the bottom end of the economy? I’m thinking specifically here of the use of interest rates to increase unemployment – yes that is a stated RNZ policy.

        Are there not any other tools or parts of the economy we can look at to do reduce money supply?

        All of the other issues you raise would need to be addressed as well – which is exactly why someone like you should get yourself back into TOP and engage with these policies – you’ve got a lot to offer.

        I, like you, have concerns about the flat tax and also trying to do it all at once – the policy would need to be done step by step or incrementally, as we say in software development, so that you can show people how it works early on and without major economic drama, and they see it’s benefits, provide feedback and then you go forward from there.

        • Thank you for your kind reply.

          I’m reminded of a story about a woman renowned for being organized and spending her time meaningfully.

          A lady, in awe ask of the renowned woman asked, “how do you keep your priorities straight?”

          The woman replied: “I don’t, I’m always straightening them out.”

          This is probably a truth that can be applied to tax/economic/welfare thinking. Milton Friedman had an idea similar to (UBI) but called “Negative Income Tax” [though probably more aimed at the American economy before the abandonment of the gold standard in 1971].

          I don’t think there is one utopian system, but things could definitely be better. TOP like ACT put forward interesting ideas, unfortunately the MSM and the chattering classes don’t give them the curtsey of refining their ideas through meaningful debate.

    • Thanks for the link.
      Worth thinking about, for sure.
      Some way in: The talk about “bottom feeders” etc …This beneficiary bashing has got to stop! It’s been appalling.

      • Thanks Kheala – Yes – the points he makes about beneficiary bashing were incredible – this represents the future – TOP are way ahead of the electorate on this – note comments above.

    • I looked at the TOPs manifesto last time round and went
      fuck right off

      like winnie they talk some sense then go and fuck it right up

  27. The site Sour Kraut won’t denounce has more brown faces and women that are are “qualified” by being voted to be executed. Racists like Sour Kraut are voting Maori and Polynesian leaders, women and politicians

    I wondered why Sour Unkraut wouldn’t denounce Nuremberg’s alt-right racism and misogyny and reading this apartheid post by him it’s becoming crystal clear. Some are “born-to-rule” white males and others will die by being voted up an alt-right execution list.

          • What you mean is “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
            It’s a pretty obvious shabby troll tactic.
            No one gives a shit about your weird website. Hopefully no one has clicked on it.
            What would the blog turn in to if we all google some horrible shit and make the other posters all have to say they disagree with it -or what?
            It would be worse than berts constant derailing.

            Green voter?

              • Thanks Bert, Keepcalmcarryon and Sour Kraut are what Trump would call “fine people”.

                Trump couldn’t denounce the racially inspired killing of black woman Heather Heyer, just as Sour Kraut and Keepcalmcarryon cannot denounce Nuremburg hatred:

                — Trump, April 26, 2019

                The violence in Charlottesville in the summer of President Trump’s first year in office continues to be a flash point in the presidential campaign. After one woman, 32-year-old Heather Heyer, was killed by a white supremacist while she protested a rally of alt-right groups, Trump made a series of statements that politically backfired on him. In his first remarks, he condemned racism but suggested “both sides” were equally at fault. Members of his CEO manufacturing council resigned in protest, and Gary Cohn, a top economic aide at the time who is Jewish, also considered resigning.

                Denying, an obvious right-wing hate-site is easy Keepcalmcarryon and Sour Kraut, you don’t even have to visit the site, bert and I have taken one for the team and visited this right-wing site so you don’t have to!

                We’ll also give you an example of Nuremburg’s hate, so you don’t have to go there. Also:

                Siouxie Wiles
                On Christmas Eve I received an email to let me know I’d been added to the “accused” list on a website called Nuremberg NZ. “Kind regards”, ended the sender. Those behind Nuremberg NZ want people like me to have “thier (sic) day of reckoning” in a similar way to how Nazi war criminals were tried after the second world war. According to the website, my crimes are “misleading the public” and “supporting a government to perform medical experiment (sic) on it’s (sic) citizens”. Nuremberg NZ gives people the opportunity to leave a comment about each accused and to vote on whether they should be listed. User bennyman88 comments with one word, “Murderer”, and votes “agree”

                Should a health expert be executed for trying to help slow the spread of a pandemic Sour Kraut and Keepcalmcarryon?

                If either of you agree with this notion of exceuting Ms Wiles, we’ll assume you both agree with it. After all WWG1WGA? Right?

                Waiting here by the solar-powered laptop, drumming.

  28. ‘A cluster fuck of madness that Seymour will not be able to contain once he releases it”?

    Or a cluster fuck of clear thinking from Seymour. Create chaos and while, like at an explosive protest when everyone is chucking in their tuppence worth from their own perspective and adding to the mayhem, he comes through all calm up the middle and takes over.

    Chaos and lack of clear thinking suits him. In some ways it’s just like the crazy Brian Tamaki lot without the black clothes, sunnies, bikes and god.

    • Seymour, like Tamaki believes he’s a celebrity and sadly so many have bought into it. If They were to look at Acts policies they would run a mile.

    • Ouch Peter, love the Seymour – Tamaki burn, encapsulated in one sentence.

      Alt-right follower and lack of remorse suits Seymour. In some ways it’s just like the crazy Sour Kraut lot without the black clothes, swastikas, women and a moral or social compass.

      • Similar to Brain Tamake’s and Derek Tait’s Destiny Church lot, big brown, muscular with leather jackets, Harley Davidson motorbikes etc riding and protesting in the name of the Lord.

        Interesting world we live in these days, Seymour and ACT are an opportunist party like Winston & NZF.

    • ACT is a Clusterfuck of Madness wealthy little old white racists dressed in suits wanting to boot te Maaori further down the road, Seymour picking up on Winston’s rhetoric.

  29. It is and has always been a noble aim in Parliament to have the law administered in some way that recognises the spirit of the compact under which our nation was founded. A ‘principles’ approach was seen to be necessary because reconciling differences in the text of the Treaty is not easy.

    But not easy never meant impossible. So equally, it is and always has been an abdication of Parliament’s duties to enact that certain statutes should be administered in some way (having particular regard to, giving effect to, etc) with respect to an undefined set of principles of an instrument (the Treaty). It is an abdication because appointed judges shouldn’t be the ones to tell us what these politically foundational but otherwise completely undefined things mean. It undermines their offices as much as it does those of the politicians, and could eventually lead to things like openly-political judicial appointments (a la the US). That in turn undermines the rule of law, a taonga if ever there was one.

    Since 1987 and “Lands” (and the “partnership between races” per Robin Cooke) we have seen Parliament enact many co-governence structures into law, the vast majority in Treaty settlements. This in my view is fantastic, and these things shouldn’t be undone for obvious reasons, and also can’t be for the kinds of practical political reasons Martyn outlines.

    But it is – constitutionally – another issue altogether to assert that the judicially-defined ‘principles’ imply co-governance per se (as Labour do and as the Maori Party do). They don’t. What they imply is, strictly, a legal issue to be decided on the facts of a case before the Courts. But of course that’s always been ridiculous – and the principles ought always have been settled politically.

    So it is not a big deal for David Seymour to contest the principles politically, and it is good that he is.

    Of course it is a shame that he is misleading people about the difference between what he is talking about – the legislature defining the principles – and co-governance per se. We should condone it about as much as we should condone Ms Ardern’s many misrepresentations regarding Covid-19 to her advantage. But a politician simplifying to their advantage is not new stuff so perhaps getting too breathless might be a bit shortsighted.

    If DS’s stuff ever got over the line, a lot of racist folks might be disappointed when Treaty settlement co-governance arrangements are not undone. But if he didn’t – and we continue with judicial incrementalism in the meaning of the principles – we will get some analogue of the UK public’s disquiet with similar structures in the European Charter – a core thing in behind Brexit. What is obviously needed is to try his idea, treat the public like adults as he says, and explain exactly what the idea does and does not mean.

    That the principles need to be better defined – by Parliament – is uncontroversial. Even Sir Tony Randerson, former President of the Court of Appeal and OG architect of the RMA replacement, said the Treaty clause in the new RM legislation would need better definition than an open-ended setup.

    So yeah. Let’s hold DS to a high standard but accept that he might have a point without immediately going to screaming “racist” like “middle class Wellington wokesters” are wont to do.

  30. The Treaty of Waitangi is a simple, unambiguous document that served its purpose in 1840. It ceded the islands to the British Crown in perpetuity, it protected property owned by the inhabitants and conveyed British citizenship to all the inhabitants. Nothing more. It was, and remains, constitutionally impossible for the Sovereign to enter into a partnership with its subjects.
    The problem with the issues outlined in Mr Bradley’s essay is that the enabling legislation is being undemocratically enacted with minimum consultation, debate or discussion with the electorate and is thus undemocratic.
    The He Puapua report was not revealed until requested by an opposition politician. It was not mentioned in the Labour Parties manifesto during the 2020 election campaign, nor was it mentioned during the campaign. Consequently, any moves to initiate the objectives outlined might be fairly described as undemocratic. Notably, the report was not revealed to the Party’s coalition partner.
    Ideally, the Government should step back from its apparent intentions, set out its rationale, invite consultation and discussion and campaign upon its policies in the approach to the 2023 election.

  31. Well I see Luxon has come out and said he doesn’t support a co governance referendum. How could he when National seem to have had enough adults that actually tried to find solutions and hold the Treaty in some regard.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.