The State of David Seymour's Shameless Condescension and Unbridled Arrogance

A rotten little Bill; the attack on Te Tiriti; scrounging for votes,...and saleable Water Rights

.

.

Setting the stage

Question: How does one make money, when something stands in the way?

Answer: Get rid of that thing. Or at least dilute it.

Present Day, Aotearoa New Zealand

In his Beehive media statement, Seymour recently demanded a “national conversation” on his so-called ‘Treaty Principles Bill’:

“I am looking forward to this important national conversation about the place of the Treaty in our constitutional arrangements.”

Having a “national conversation” (or “national debate”) has been one of Seymour’s key talking points in this unpleasant saga. He has plugged that phrase at every opportunity:

“There are going to be plenty of opportunities for this conversation to take place up and down the country over the next several months…”

And:

“Once we allow people to debate freely, New Zealanders usually get to a better place, and that is the legacy of [the bill], whether it passes this time or not”.

And:

“It's also becoming clear - when TVNZ's polling says 46% of people say they feel that the country is divided by ethnicity or ancestry - that the New Zealand we like to think of is no more, and we need to have an honest conversation about how that's happened in the last 50 years.”

He makes it sound so… casual. Just a wee chat over tea and cucumber sandwiches. Very polite. Very gentile. Let’s water-down our founding document that brought peace to this land - more tea? Gingernut?

The “conversation” that erupted, though, has not quite been to Seymour’s liking.

Te Pāti Māori MP, Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, rocked the country with an expression of unbridled furious disdain for the Bill, culminating in a haka heard around the world:

.

.

.

Seymour dismissive of Te Pāti Māori MPs

Minister Seymour was apparently a little ‘put out’:

“The Speaker needs to make it clear that the people of New Zealand who elect people to this Parliament has a right for their representative to be heard, not drowned out by someone doing a haka or getting in their face making shooting gestures.”

In fact, he was riled up that the debate on his Bill was not held in a supposedly ‘rational’ way. His way.

.

.

“I think it actually is thuggery, yes, to say that you’re going to use force and intimidation, getting in someone’s face, physical actions over words in a place that is clearly set out to be a chamber of debate that is thuggery. And I ultimately say to people, if you have to do a haka to get your point across, maybe you don’t have a good argument.”

Seymour dismissive of 50,000+ Hikoi marching New Zealanders

Over fifty thousand New Zealanders made their views crystal clear to Minister Seymour. They hikoi’d to Wellington-Te Whanganui-a-Tara and marched peacefully along the city streets to Parliament.

But Seymour was not having a bar of it. He was again dismissive of the collective opposition to his wretched Bill:

“There will always be people who are out there making a lot of noise.

I think at the end of the day the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders are at work, going to school, and they'll be able to engage in this debate in their own way.

So you wouldn't want to take this hikoi as being representative of New Zealand.”

Seymour was eager to characterise hikoi marchers and opposition to his as mis-informed:

“There's a group of people who frequently misinform the public and the audience about what this bill says.

Some of them have been given bad information.

[…]

And I believe that there are a lot of people who have been poorly informed and I see it every day.”

I wonder… Can we apply the same standard to the 246,409 NZers who voted for ACT last year? How "misinformed" and "poorly informed" were they, to tick the box for the ACT Party?

Mr Seymour might not be too happy about that suggestion.

Seymour dismissive of 42 King’s Counsel lawyers

A day after the hikoi, forty-two KC (King’s Counsel) lawyers signed a collective letter to PM Luxon, stating their “significant concerns about the coalition government’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill. We outline below our concerns regarding the substance of the Bill, its wider implications for New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and the process adopted”.

The letter was thoughtful, measured, and appeared to meet Minister Seymour’s self-declared definition of “high-quality conversation”.

Evidently not, as Minister Seymour dismissed forty-two of the most experienced, legalistic, and sharpest minds in Aotearoa-New Zealand:

First of all, can I just note you started off with priests, then you were down to 40 lawyers and you finished off with the Human Rights Commissioner.

I mean, it's not exactly a star-studded cast, and many of those so-called religious leaders on further inspection turned out not to be anything of the sort. But we'll put that aside.”

Seymour dismissive of Human Rights Commissioner

As Seymour derided “40 lawyers” (42, actually) above, he managed to get in a side swipe at Former Race Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, who condemned the Bill in no uncertain terms:

“During that time and since, I have never seen a government bill which is so damaging to our race relations and so comprehensively inimical to the human rights of indigenous people. It is overwhelmingly opposed by members of Parliament, including the vast majority of government members. It has caused an outcry from Māori, the largest ever political protest demonstration at Parliament, and condemnation by past and present leaders from both sides of the political spectrum.

It has proceeded against the advice of the Ministry of Justice and the Waitangi Tribunal. It is in breach of the Treaty itself and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is dead in the water, but while it remains in Parliament it continues to do harm.”

True to form, Seymour dismissed the former Commissioner:

“Even those convinced the Treaty Principles Bill will not become law are determined to stop it being discussed.”

And of course, his swipe at the former Human Rights Commissioner: “and you [Lisa Owen, RNZ] finished off with the Human Rights Commissioner. I mean, it's not exactly a star-studded cast…”

Seymour dismissive of former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley

Former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley added her voice to the growing chorus of condemnation against the Bill:

“The Treaty, when it's come under pressure from either side, our voices have been raised.

I was young enough to remember Bastion Point, and look, the Treaty has helped us navigate. When people have had to raise their voice, it's brought us back to what it's been - an enduring relationship where people then try to find their way forward.

I would raise my voice. I'm proud that the National Party has said they will not be supporting this, because you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth.

And I think any voice that's raised, and there are many people - pākeha and Māori who are not necessarily on this hikoi - who believe that a relationship is something you keep working at. You don't just throw it in the bin and then try and rewrite it as it suits you.”

Ms Shipley called out Seymour’s naked self-serving politicisation of the Treaty as well as his grifting:

“I just despise people who want to use a treasure - which is what the Treaty is to me - and use it as a political tool that drives people to the left or the right, as opposed to inform us from our history and let it deliver a future that is actually who we are as New Zealanders… I condemn David Seymour for his using this, asking the public for money to fuel a campaign that I think really is going to divide New Zealand in a way that I haven't lived through in my adult life. There's been flashpoints, but I view this incredibly seriously.”

The former PM then warned of dire consequences for fuelling race issues for political gain:

“…And I caution New Zealand, the moment you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you invite civil war.”

Seymour responded to Ms Shipley with all the personal spite that ten-year-olds in a playground could muster:

“It sounds like she took about as much care on those [civil war] comments as she took on reviewing the accounts when she was the director at Mainzeal.”

Low blow, Mr Seymour. For someone who has piously lamented the lack of reasoned, calm debate on this issue, the ACT Leader was snide in his personal attack on Ms Shipley. He simply couldn’t address the points she had raised.

Seymour dismissive of Chris Finlayson

Former Treaty Negotiations Minister, and high-ranking National Party MP, Chris Finlayson, had his own trenchant criticisms of the Bill:

“I think David's got to understand that while he may want a nice, rarefied, intellectual seminar on the principles of the Treaty, it's a lot more than that.

It goes to the heart of what tangata whenua aspire to and so on and it can't be seen as a mere debate. It's a lot more than that.

We were on such a good path in a bipartisan way, over many years we've been working toward trying to undo the burdens of the past so that we could move to the future together as one, and a lot of that's being undone now. It's most unfortunate.

You do not go negate, with a single stroke of a pen, 184 years of debate and discussion, with a bill that I think is very simplistic.”

He also expressed disappointment at his current colleagues in the National party caucus for being complicit in Seymour’s machinations:

“There's a school of thought that says a lot of people in the National Party today aren't perhaps aware of the liberal conservative traditions of the party and the work that was done over many generations by people like Ralph Hanan, Duncan MacIntyre, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, me.

Maybe they need to go back and look at their history and look at the commitment that the National Party has made ... not expecting any votes out of it but because it was the right thing to do.

A lot of, maybe, people in the National Party today are more concerned about their careers than about the history and traditions of the National Party.”

Seymour responded with his usual impeccable standard of highly intelligent, persuasive, and articulate debate…

…Nah, kidding. His comment was that of another ten-year-old in the playground:

“He’s [Finlayson] showing the sort of haughtiness and bitterness that is unbecoming of someone who has had their time as a politician and should really be proud of their achievements and be ready to move on.”

Charming.

Mr Finlayson was perhaps one of the most experienced and highly respected Treaty negotiations Ministers. His achievements are acknowledged by both ends of the political spectrum. Seymour could learn a thing or three from his predecessor.

Seymour dismissive of TJ Perenara

The power of Māori anger was again put on the global stage when All Blacks halfback, TJ Perenara, made the haka into a - *shock! horror* - war dance directed against Seymour’s Bill!

“Toitū te mana o te whenua, toitū te mana motuhake, toitū te tiriti o Waitangi" [translates as "the sovereignty of the land remains, the sovereignty of the people remains, the Treaty of Waitangi remains”]

Conservatives were apoplectic. How dare a Māori use their own culture in a way it was intended, and not just for Pākehā’s amusement! Dammit, when we appropriate someone else’s culture, we expect it to stay appropriated!

Needless to say, Mr Seymour expressed collective conservative Pākehā outrage in his own way, giving new meaning to “We are not amused!”:

“Because someone is very good at rugby, for example, doesn't mean that they [TJ Perenara] have any extra expertise.”

There was a distinct echo of British colonialism in Seymour’s patronising dismissiveness of TJ Perenara voicing support for Te Tiriti. Seymour might as well have said “stay in your own lane, brown boy - your betters are talking!”.

Seymour dismissive of everyone but himself

By now it is fairly clear that the ACT leader is dismissive of anyone who voices opposition or even questions his Treaty Bill.

Even when opposition is framed within his self-declared "reasoned debate" confines - as Ms Shipley and Mr Finlayson attempted - Seymour remains dismissive, intolerant of criticism.

There is good reason for Seymour’s inflexible trenchant hard-sell of his Bill: money.

To re-cap: water rights

In 2016, the John Key-led National government opened a figurative can of eels when it proceeded to partially privatise Mighty River Power, Meridian Energy, Genesis Energy and Air New Zealand. (Solid Energy was also on the agenda, but its collapse put a stop to that. See 2015 blogpost: Solid Energy and LandCorp – debt and doom, courtesy of a “fiscally responsible” National Govt)

Until partial-privatisation, Mighty River Power, Meridian Energy and Genesis Energy were state-owned enterprises, owned by the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. Profits from electricity generation was for the collective good.

But with partial privatisation, the profits would now be shared between the State (the people of this country) and private shareholders.

This immediately raised the suggestion that water rights could be privately owned to return profits to shareholkders.

Which meant that water could be considered a tradeable commodity.

This precipitated Māori to lodge claims with the Waitangi Tribunal. If water was now a commodity that could be traded and used for private profit, then the Treaty of Waitangi had something to say about that.

The Prime Minister of the day, John Key, tried to reassure the country that water would not be privatised:

“My position's rock solid and in my view no one owns water.”

Deputy PM, Bill English also reaffirmed:

“There has been a general agreement that there is no mechanism to determine the ownership of water. It's a public good, like the air.

What matters is how it is used and the rules that apply to that use.”

In September 2012, the Waitangi Tribunal did in fact determine that with the partial sale of powercos, “that Māori still have residual proprietary rights in water and the Crown will breach the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi if it goes ahead with the intended share sale”.

The Crown position did not dispute Māori interests in water:

“The Crown accepts that Māori have legitimate rights and interests in water but asserts no one owns water and therefore the best way forward is not to develop a framework for Māori proprietary rights but to strengthen the role and authority of Māori in resource management processes.”

Which, curiously is where David Seymour’s so-called Treaty Principles Bill comes in.

As Seymour has been ‘banging on’ about the intent of his Bill, his main assertion is that “all New Zealanders have equal rights”:

“Far from being a divisive document, the Treaty is a powerful guide for New Zealand’s future, establishing that all New Zealanders have equal rights, and that the government has a duty to protect those rights.”

This is important: by ‘equalising’ Māori and non-Māori , it effectively removes Māori as a signatory to the Treaty. It places Māori on the same legal-footing as Pākehā, Pacifica, Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and every other ethnic group in the country.

Remember, the Treaty is a contract between Māori (aka Tangata Whenua) and the Crown. The Crown represents Tangata Tiriti.

To put Māori “equal” with Tangata Tiriti, in legal terms, means that the Treaty has only one signatory: the Crown.

A ludicrous proposition, rendering the Treaty meaningless.

Which is as Mr Seymour fully intends. When Seymour insists “the Bill will not alter or amend the Treaty itself” - he is lying. He knows precisely what his Bill is intentioned for: to render the Treaty a legal ‘nullity’.

Once that is accomplished, Mr Seymour can then proceed with privatising Aotearoa New Zealand’s natural assets.

Like water.

The ACT website makes it clear what is next on their agenda:

.

.

“What is the future of co-governance if this Bill passes?”

“Defining principles based on the Articles of Te Tiriti would mean co-governance arrangements for public institutions and utilities, such as at universities and for water services, would no longer be supported by the Treaty.

Limited co-governance arrangements included in Waitangi Tribunal settlements would continue to be supported as pragmatic ways to reconcile Māori customary and public interests over traditionally shared resources such as rivers and mountains.

Examples include the Tūpuna Maunga Authority managing Auckland’s volcanic mountains, Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes, Te Urewera, and the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River settlement).”

Make no mistake: this is an asset grab by stealth.

It removes the Treaty of Waitangi as the one single stumbling block for mass privatisation of natural assets such as water rights.

Māori would have no more say in the matter than Pākehā, Pacifica, Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, or every other ethnic group in the country. As the Waitangi Tribunal put it:

“If enacted, the Tribunal found, the Bill would reduce the constitutional status of the Treaty/te Tiriti, remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses, limit Māori rights and Crown obligations, hinder Māori access to justice, impact Treaty settlements, and undermine social cohesion.”

The ‘equality’ that Seymour envisages is equal impotence.

Here is one prime example of The Treaty standing as a bulwark against corporate-inspired environmental degradation (hat-tip: Mountain Tui):

.

.

“…but Kiwis Against Seabed Minining (Kasm), Ngāti Ruanui, Nga Rauru Kītahi, Greenpeace and seven other environmental and fishing groups successfully fought the approval through the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Natalie Coates, legal counsel for Te Kahui O Rauru who appeared for the iwi in both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, said it was a precedent-setting decision.

"This is an exciting day for iwi. The Supreme Court decision is precedent setting and will have implications beyond the specific EEZ Act.

"The Court has given strong and clear direction about the central role that Te Tiriti has in our constitution and in the law that will guide how all Treaty clauses in legislation are interpreted in the future. Tikanga was also affirmed as being part of our law".”

Remember the question posed at the beginning of this blogpost?

Question: How does one make money, when something thing stands in the way?

Answer: Get rid of that thing. Or at least dilute it.

David Seymour is working on it: dilute the Treaty and you get rid of the thing standing in the way of making money.

Tomorrow is another day for Seymour’s agenda

Seymour realises that his Bill is doomed. Neither National or NZ First will support it past the first reading.

But Seymour is playing the “long game” with his agenda to dilute the Treaty; to put Tangata Whenua on the same, ‘equal’ footing as Tangata Tiriti (ie, powerless); and to pillage this country’s resources for business interests.

“He pointed to the more than two decades between former ACT MP Michael Laws first introducing the euthanasia debate into Parliament in 1995, and the End of Life Choice Bill passing its third reading in 2019.

“Sometimes it takes several attempts to get a debate like this up,” he said.”

Remember, Seymour himself was quite candid, in “…the legacy of [the bill], whether it passes this time or not.”

Writing for Newsroom, Fox Meyer explained Seymour’s strategy with stark clarity:

But for Seymour, that was still a win. He told reporters on Wednesday that it often takes multiple attempts for significant upheavals to progress through Parliament, and cited the end of life choice movement as a prime example of something that was initially unpopular, but grew more palatable over time.

“Once you introduced the idea that it was okay to debate a topic, then it was inevitable that more sensible positions would come out,” said Seymour. He said he believed New Zealand’s stance on the Treaty as a whole “is not sensible”.

Seymour is relying on a principle known as the ‘Overton Window’ whereby “the window frames the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office given the climate of public opinion at that time… As the spectrum moves or expands, an idea at a given location may become more or less politically acceptable”.

Seymour probably believes that by simply putting out an idea to public discourse, that it will move from ‘Unthinkable/Radical’ to ‘Popular/Policy’ in a period of time, as the public becomes comfortable with a given idea. It is thought to be a slow progress that is socially inevitable, with passing time.

Except… it is not always so.

History is littered with ‘something that was initially unpopular’ - and yet ultimately failed to take hold: temperance movements, prohibition, apartheid, Soviet-style communism etc.

It is in this way that Seymour’s wretched Bill will not only end up in Parliament’s rubbish bin - it will remain there. The voice of Māori and supporting Tangata Tiriti is too strong, too ingrained as part of our culture, and can never be silenced.

Meanwhile, even as David Seymour will be little more than a brief footnote in history books, the Treaty will endure.

.

References

Beehive: Hon David Seymour - Treaty Principles Bill passes first reading

RNZ: Ngāti Toa's challenge to David Seymour - Kill Treaty Principles Bill or front up

Newsroom: Treaty Principles Bill - Seymour’s first step in normalising idea

TVNZ News: Treaty bill - ACT leader Seymour on coalition partners' disagreement

NZ Herald: Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke and the haka that’s been seen 700 million times by a worldwide audience

Te Ao Māori News: David Seymour annoyed by Māori MPs’ haka

Waatea News: Seymour criticizes haka, sparks tikanga debate

RNZ: Hīkoi not representative of New Zealand, David Seymour says

RNZ: David Seymour speaks on Hikoi mo te tiriti

Electoral Commission: Official results for the 2023 General Election

Scoop News: Grave concerns: 42 KCs tell PM to abandon Treaty Principles Bill

Newsroom: Treaty principles hearing worthwhile despite inevitable death – Seymour

NZ Herald: Treaty Principles Bill - ‘I have never seen a bill more damaging to our race relations’ – former Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres

RNZ: Treaty Principles Bill 'inviting civil war', Jenny Shipley says

RNZ: Dame Jenny Shipley on Treaty Principles Bill (interview - @4:34)

NZ Herald: Act Party leader David Seymour takes aim at high-ranking critics of Treaty Principles Bill

RNZ: Treaty Principles Bill will greatly damage National's relationship with Māori - former minister

RNZ: TJ Perenara shows support for hīkoi during haka

RNZ: Louisa Wall says TJ Perenara's Treaty statement during haka was censored

NZ Herald: John Key - 'No one owns water'

Otago Daily Times: Water ownership not up for negotiation, says Key

Māori Law Review: Māori rights in water – the Waitangi Tribunal’s interim report

Beehive: Treaty Principles Bill introduced to Parliament

Network Waitangi Otautahi: Who are Tangata Tiriti?

Cambridge Dictionary: nullity

Act Party: The Treaty Principles Bill - What is the future of co-governance if this Bill passes?

Waitangi Tribunal: Tribunal releases report on Treaty Principles Bill

RNZ: Taranaki ironsands mining appeal fails at Supreme Court

Stuff media: David Seymour has been here ‘many times before’ as ACT pursues Treaty Principles Bill

Wikipedia: Overton Window

Additional

Bluesky: fmacskasy - te Tiriti debate - not like that

NZ Herald: Act Party leader David Seymour takes aim at high-ranking critics of Treaty Principles Bill

Parliament: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill — First Reading

RNZ: Checkpoint - David Seymour speaks on Hikoi mo te tiriti

Newsroom: Let’s not play into Seymour’s hands

Newsroom: Seymour is relying on us not knowing our history

Newsroom: The dubious politics of the Treaty Principles Bill - Sir Geoffrey Palmer

The Spinoff: How the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill played out

Youtube: Mountain Tui - What David Seymour Isn't Telling You: Treaty of Waitangi Protects NZ's Nature and Precious Resources

Other Blogs

Nick’s Kōrero: What's the time Mr Seymour?

Mountain Tui: Endgame

Mountain Tui: ACT's Astroturfing & A Co-ordinated Attack on Te Pati Māori

Mountain Tui: An Irritable NZ Pawn - David Seymour Admits Treaty Principles Bill will clear the way for development

Mountain Tui: This is the real reason David Seymour needs to reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi

The Standard: On the whining and treason of David Seymour

The Standard: If Seymour succeeds what happens to Ngāpuhi’s Treaty claim?

Previous related blogposts

The State of David Seymour's Shameless Double Standards

.

.

Acknowledgement: Sharon Murdoch

.

Liked what you read? Feel free to share.

Have your own thoughts? Leave a comment. (Trolls need not bother.)

.

= fs =