The audacity of ACT playing victim over their race baiting referendum


This attempt to paint themselves as the victim by demanding a binary referendum where the prejudices of the majority extinguish the rights of the minority would be funny if it weren’t so ludicrous!

Of course we should have a discussion about the constitutional design of NZ, I’ve been arguing for one for decades, but that’s not what ACT are offering.

They are offering a binary referendum where the majority removes the rights of the minority.

Look, you either have those rights, or you don’t, that is a legal and philosophical debate, but what ACT are demanding is the tyranny of the majority to kill off the rights of the minority.

And then they wonder why their political stunt is generating such furious backlash!

ACT claims no one can point to one thing that he has said or done that is race baiting.

Well allow me to clear that up.

When David released the unique code for Māori to be vaccinated, that was a public health vandalism stunt that he used to race bait Māori.

TDB Recommends

When he called Opotoki ‘Mogadishu‘, he was race baiting.

When he called gang member behaviour, ‘subhuman’, he was race baiting.

When he claims this…

…he’s race baiting.

When he posted this on Instagram…

…he was race baiting.

When he wants to remove January 2nd as a State Holiday because of ‘Matariki’, he is race baiting!

When he does his pseudo one law for all wank, he is race baiting.

When he looks to amputate all the Ministries that aren’t male and white, he’s race baiting.

Wanting to push for a referendum that renegotiates the the Treaty and then forces it upon Māori is, you guessed it – race baiting!

Let’s have a debate about NZs Constitution, but let’s not pretend a binary referendum on the principles of the Treaty is anything other than raw meat for ACTs redneck voting block.


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 going into this pandemic and 2020 election – please donate here.

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


  1. Seymour’s been living under a rock;that discussion has been going on since the Treaty was signed, and more specifically since Waitangi Tribunal Act was passed in 1975.
    People far more learned than Seymour have researched, debated, and argued the Rights and the wrongs granted by the treaty. If Seymour is not happy with the outcome, he needs to do the research and take it through the courts like Māori have had to do.
    Calling for a binary referendum, pretending that it is not an attempt to overturn all that work is disingenuous at least, and certainly appeals to the rich elitist section of our society who obviously believe their systemic advantages are being put at risk.

    • To be fair if Seymour wasn’t in Act he’d be in the corrupt National party, it’s what they’re known for.

    • ACTS proposal is not a referendum on the Treaty, its a referendum on the Treaty “Principles”.

      You & Martyn both know this: the principles that don’t exist in the Treaty & were invented a few decades ago by Palmer & Cooke.

      • RobbieWgtn, how exactly do you think ‘the principals of the Treaty’ can be determined by a binary referendum? How many people have the knowledge to even discuss it in depth? A lot of peoples’ ‘opinions’ are based simply on fear and dare I say it bigotry and misinformation. All decissions by the courts have had to argue their case cognisant of the Treaty wording and interpretation. If ACT don’t like the results, challenge it in the courts. As Luxon has rightly said such a referendum would be divisive and unhelpful.

        • Curious what you find objectionable about what RobbieWgtn has said? It’s factually accurate? As far as I can tell Act is trying to define the principles, which parliament never did, and are constantly evolving. The issue with that of course is the inconsistency. Go to different law schools around the country and you’ll be taught a different set of principles. Clearly an issue no?

          I don’t think you need a referendum, I think you can just do that with an act of parliament. But a referendum would get public buy-in and hopefully lead us to a more united place going forward. Maybe. Though if Marama Davidson, Willie Jackson and John Tamihere have there way there’ll be a lot of violence, division and misinformation along the way sadly.

          • Matt, don’t all principals, like history, evolve? Attempting to draft an Act of Parliament that enshrines in a prescriptive sense the supposed ‘principals of the treaty’ would be an exercise in futility; it would quickly become outdated, and it would still be up to the courts to interpret it – so back to square one!
            What we need is patience, which is actually a sign of maturity, to let the current process evolve slowly – not a yes/no referendum that ultimately would prove nothing.
            Parliament has never acted on any previous citizen referendum simply because the simple yes/no result does not provide solutions.
            What we can be sure of is that there are many players, both local and foreign, that would relish a referendum to publish misinformation and stir-up trouble, something we simply do not need if we are looking to have 3 years of stable government.

          • Matt, you did so well until the last sentence crap…

            “Though if Marama Davidson, Willie Jackson and John Tamihere have there way there’ll be a lot of violence, division and misinformation along the way sadly.”

            A very divisive statement.

            You, yourself are straight from the Brian Tamaki misinformation brochure.

  2. Seymour wants to reduce or remove established treaty conditions so that some people can profit from any change. Call it Principles if you like but it is just greed and mostly by those who have enough already

    • Exactly. ACTing for their donors.
      These hypocritical liars and perverts don’t give give a stuff about “rights”, “free speech” or anything else they employ as a political wedge.

      They’re only interested in $$$$ for the few.
      Got 8.5% of voters suckered in though.

  3. I look forward to watching the political credibility of this closeted apologist for privilege run in rather short order down though his hands and into the drain .

  4. Standard operating procedure of the fascist and/or mildly populist, or even egotist.
    When criticised – play VICTIM.
    Pffft. Next

    • Why does he claim descent from any Maori tribe when clearly, he doesn’t value that heritage?
      He speaks with forked tongue.

      His support during the election campaign, plummeted to almost half what it had been. He has no mandate for any of his policies. If this one is a diversion to enthrall the media, so is everything else he proposes.
      Even Epsom voters, surely now, understand what a waste of space he is.
      If I lived there, I’d object to being used like that. They are not geniuses of tactical voting, they have been hoodwinked.

    • It also said in his wikipedia page: Public release of Māori vaccination code
      In September 2021, Seymour caused a controversy after releasing a special COVID-19 vaccination appointment access code meant exclusively for Māori people in Auckland to his followers on Twitter.[82] The code was intended for the population that is the least vaccinated and most at-risk for COVID-19 demographic in New Zealand.[102][103] The code offered priority access for Māori who wished to be vaccinated by Whānau Waipareira (a Māori social services agency) at the Trusts Arena in West Auckland.

  5. This referendum is a decoy policy to be sacrificed during negotiations for other less controversial, but no less damaging gains. No political party would seriously want the level of division this would create. Meanwhile the paparazzi are all running around frothing at the mouth over it while ignoring Act’s other batshit crazy policies. IMO

    • IMO Seymour believes everything he says. I suppose you could call him a man of principals, even if his beliefs are warped. Could also be why he and Winston hate each over, because Winston has no principals.

    • RobbieWgt, Chris trotter has always advocated for the TOW to be scrapped What he’s not spelling out is that most NZers don’t have a clue about this historic document and the significance of why pakeha exist in this country at all.

      Also the principal’s favor pakeha more than it does Maori for instance, majority of Maori signatories advocated and signed the maori version which promises them ‘tino rangatiratanga’ continued control over their lands and resources but the principals nullifies these guarantees extensively.

      Also as Chloe Strawbridge said the other day on 3 NEWS in a debate with Seymour, what ACT are proposing is a ‘reductive binary referendum’ to an ignorant and it could be rightfully argued, anti-Maori majority which the final conclusion is inevitable. She also argued correctly IMO that a reductive binary referendum which means a YES or NO to constitutional issue is far more important and complicated for the general public to understand.

      The cannabis Bill and the End of Life referendum are straight forward unlike NZ/AO founding document which Parliament has been elected to hire expertise like historians, lawyers, etc… to set a framework on how to make it work? IMO they’ve (Nats & Lab) done successfully. Are we going to have a referendum on every piece of legislation that gets debated or is that task for the politicians that we have entrusted through elections to do that on our behalf?

      • Many people immigrated to these islands and have made tremendous contributions to and sacrifices for our society – legally – and has a license to live here as long as they comply with the social licence.
        The treaty principles, whatever society decides that is, belong to them also. The treaty is not exclusive, it his inclusive.

        Stop being so scared to loose what you do not own.

      • “Chris trotter has always advocated for the TOW to be scrapped”.

        Any actual evidence for your assertion? You should know that Chris is an old time lefty who can’t believe what his beloved Labour party have done to this country.

        “…constitutional issue is far more important and complicated for the general public to understand” .

        Yeah nah.
        Constitutional issues are rightly decided by voters not politicians or the judiciary.

  6. What does the treaty really mean? Has the Crown lived up to it since 1840 when it decided that it would become the only land trader for Maori Land?

    There within lies the problem. Property Rights. Property Rights for Maori are not the same as they are for ‘Others’. Maori Landowners have a load of (pre)conditions, and caveats whereas the ‘others’ have freehold in the absolute sense.

  7. We have in the Westminster System, and since 1840, a historically racist form of governance and judiciary that no one voted for.

    NZ citizens probably know less about the Westminster system than they do the Treaty.

    Educate the public on other options then have a referendum on whether our current System is the best there is going forward.

    • Tough talk from the left that couldn’t even boil an egg when in charge.
      I’m sure Seymour is hastily scribbling down your advice.

  8. For the last 40 years the “TOW Principles” have evolved by a combination of politicians who didn’t know or care about the consequences of their bills, activist judges who aren’t elected, and a Waitangi Tribunal which has given up any pretence of being neutral and states that they can change their decisions at any time and the country just has to accept it
    Given that all Kiwis and their descendents lives are going to be governed by the principles they have to have a say
    A referendum on a Bill setting out the principles and their legal meaning is mandatory because it stops the slide to violent unrest.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here