The Treaty Principles Bill - debate and debunk

Original article posted to NBR.co.nz on October 10, 2024. Read the article here: tinyurl.com/53...
This video contains footage from The Working Group Podcast: • The Iwi vs. Peewee Tre...
Subscribe to NBR.co.nz for the latest news and analysis: www.nbr.co.nz/...
The National Business Review is a digital news service dedicated to independent coverage of business and politics in New Zealand and Australia. No ads, government funding, or opinion pieces.
Connect with NBR:
Visit nbr.co.nz: www.nbr.co.nz/
Find NBR on TikTok: / nbr_nz
Find NBR on Facebook: / nbronline
Find NBR on Twitter: / thenbr
View NBR on LinkedIn: / national-business-review
Find NBR on Instagram: / nbr_nz

[@kiwibird2024]

The assumption that indigenous people have equal rights is quite far from the truth. Name me a colonised country where the indigenous were treated fairly and equally. To say this is about universal humanity is purely to get people onside. It's like saying, listen we know you've been disadvantaged for 200 years, but now we don't want you to have a say anymore. That's fair right? Just because YOU don't have to see inequality, does NOT mean it doesn't exist. And anyway, why does the NZ government, which is an extension of the crown, get to just TAKE full control? The Maori never gave it up. I'm not even Maori, it's just logical. None of this nonsense makes any sense.

[@Rokker61]

"Why does the NZ government, which is an extension of the crown, get to just TAKE full control? The Maori never gave it up." Really? Maybe you should read article one of the Treaty again - in Māori if you wish, just to ensure accuracy: Ko te tuatahi: Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu - te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.

[@tanepukenga1421]

@@Rokker61 That doesn't say what you obviously think it says

[@tanepukenga1421]

@@Rokker61 Also, nice way to attempt to discount the entire war the signatories fought in when their sovereignty was ignored. Then the one after

[@charleswalker2484]

"but now we don't want you to have a say anymore". No they will still be allowed to vote, submit on bills, be elected to Parliament, have special seats in Parliament and many other things. You activists are pretending like if this passes Maori will be in chains lol. It will just remove the ability to veto resource consents and things like that because that's what ACT party voters in Epsom want.

[@Sasquatch2696]

hahaha you just copy pasted my comment

[@ingairen21]

I would love to see the iwi come together and suggest their own Principles for Te Tiriti. That would really make the debate meaningful!

[@tanepukenga1421]

They're already in place. David is trying to take them away unilaterally

[@Damocles-zy3cg]

@@tanepukenga1421what are they ?

[@tanepukenga1421]

@@Damocles-zy3cg Principals

[@Damocles-zy3cg]

@@tanepukenga1421 Nah, I meant what are the principles that are already in place ?

[@tanepukenga1421]

@@Damocles-zy3cg To get the full list you'll need to talk to someone like Sir Joe Williams. I can only point you to a few cases like the whanganui river where it's treated as taonga

[@neil3488]

Helmut's argument is that the Government is illegitimate and doesn't have the right to set laws for Māori, only for non-Māori. He is obviously a supporter of Te Pati Māori's plan for a separate Parliament for Māori. That's why David's Bill is important: It will block this plan and also the return of Labour's co-governance.

[@geofflewis8599]

As Sir David Lange once said ''Queen Victoria wasn't in the business of going into partnership with a bunch of thumbprints.''.

[@jasontuhuki5022]

That was her speaking of her own hooligans

[@geofflewis8599]

@ well, in 1840, 99 percent of the population was native, tribalised and just emerging from 40 years of killing each other, the 'hooligans' brought peace and BTW doubled the average M life-span..

[@tu9925]

@@geofflewis8599 when and who did he say that too?

[@tu9925]

@@geofflewis8599 you mean the colonial theives, murderers and convicts from Australia. The crown see them as embarrassing blight in the world.

[@labrne5659]

​@geofflewis8599 😂😂😂😂 you full of shit thats what you and the hooligans brought with you. Bunch of scavengers colonized a nation and act like "nothing" but the best has happened. Deluded

[@audreyking4682]

I hope this bill goes through. EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL! Those that are anti this change, - means that my friends kids who are MAORI through the mother and islander through the father haven't got equal rights to the treaty. If the gay community have equal rights why can't these tamariki?

[@tanepukenga1421]

Because you still allow perpetual leases, bank discrimination, employment and justice discrimination and changing our contracts unilaterally - expressly against our consent. It also doesn't help that you're supporting a bill which dictates we're not allowed the challenge the crown over anything - including treaty breeches. If you actually believe you're doing us any sort of favour by taking the rights our iwi fought wars over - you were taken in.

[@rihipaeahughes9831]

That would be great. But we not stupid people. What is equality to a racist

[@rihipaeahughes9831]

Uninformed opinions are seeds of bigotry and racism. Enough with the gaslighting gerrymandering for support

[@SykoYamakazian]

@@audreyking4682 what rights do Maori have that every other NZ citizen doesn't have?

[@I_Extinguish_I]

“equal rights for all” paired with a heartfelt but misinformed analogy-let’s unpack this. First, the Treaty already guarantees equal rights under Article 3. Māori were explicitly granted the rights and privileges of British subjects in 1840-long before any other Indigenous population in the British Empire received similar recognition. But the Treaty also recognized Māori as Treaty partners with distinct rights to tino rangatiratanga-their authority over their lands, taonga, and people. Honoring those rights isn’t about “special treatment”; it’s about upholding the commitments made in the Treaty. As for your friend’s kids, they absolutely have equal rights under the Treaty, regardless of their mixed heritage. The Treaty applies to all descendants of Māori signatories-no one’s excluded because of their father’s ethnicity. The argument here isn’t about denying rights; it’s about ensuring Māori retain the protections and partnership promised in 1840. Comparing this to LGBTQ+ rights or other movements is apples and oranges-those are about legal inclusion, while the Treaty is about honoring an agreement between two sovereign entities. If we’re serious about “equal rights for all,” we shouldn’t be tearing down the Treaty’s protections-we should be upholding them. Dismantling a partnership to chase a one-size-fits-all narrative doesn’t create equality; it ignores history and denies justice.

[@KINNZ94]

David to PM

[@FrankAhKuoi]

Yes he's our way forward 😂

[@paulchristensen2573]

Seymour for the chopping block,absolute circus act , absolute bigot.

[@John-c7i4m]

Seymour is correct…we need to have equality…not racism…needs to be referendum

[@raywheeler3135]

Seymour is incorrect....and a racist

[@tanepukenga1421]

Then maybe you shouldn't take contracts away from people based on the race we were born as. Against our consent.

[@Emantis81]

Lets just ignore the contract and see how that plays out. Maori have been civil to this point but keep pushing us around. We will rise.

[@RockitRihari-db2kj]

2008 to 2013 he worked for Atlas attacking indigenous Canadians. After domestication south America before putting the Australian aboriginal in there place too. Everywhere this crew lands stinks of oil n rape. Now the police can committ warrant less searches on marae n whenua. If it talks like a duck

[@John-c7i4m]

@ lets have a referendum to see what people think….let democracy call the shots😜

[@AucklandSeaplane]

Surely if we are partners, partnerships requires us to be equals, and behave as such, not superiority of either party based on race, but equals, moving ahead together?

[@stephenlennon7369]

Where the equality? All stats confirm otherwise

[@simplygreen5832]

No. Not necessarily, we don't have to be equal partners and you lost a war. A+ for effort though. What does this mean, it does NOT mean any human is lesser than any other. It does mean we don't introduce tribal era politics into the running of our nation.

[@tracymichaelsen493]

Maori and Pakeha are different. Maori will be forced to become Pakeha totally. If Maori aren't Maori what will we be? Kiwis? Flightless birds? No. Equality proposed takes all Maori rights away that safeguard our very existence. You call it equality. Yet instead of you embracing Maori language and culture to actually bring about equality you deem it racist. Really?

[@simplygreen5832]

@@tracymichaelsen493 Again, winners. Losers. Right? That happened a lot time ago when such things were still the norm. Though if you're aware of history you'll understand why New Zealand was an anomaly at the time. Either we can be Pakeha New Zealand and Maori New Zealand or we can be New Zealand New Zealand. If the former, well, you're my enemy because you seek my destruction in whole or part. We can learn to get along together as Kiwis or we can destroy ourselves.

[@tracymichaelsen493]

@simplygreen5832 Why do I have to give up being Maori. A kiwi is indeed an endering term used as a unity word. However law and rights, take away that cute and fluffy. Equal is shared differences. Kiwi is from an English base. English laws for predominantly Pakeha outcomes and status quo. I can see why pakeha are scared. You believe Maori see you all as an enemy. Why is that? If you think on that, then apply what David is actually proposing at breakneck speed. What do you believe this old-school hammer will forge? Unity or destruction of any Unity gained thus far? All that being said and done. I don't think it will come to civil war ,more like a disconnection.

[@moniquebode1655]

Seymour is absolutely spot in. There's no way one ethnicity should rule over another, we as NZers are equal

[@dumdum607]

My mother was sent to work for the farmer who gained her father's land from the Court. There was no ethnicity then. Go to hell.

[@townyboy3540]

Yay so no more European New Zealanders ruling over Māori, we are equal .... right! 😆

[@paulchristensen2573]

No seymour absolute wrong , treaty not about democracy, between crown and maori, whether maori get more so be it, was there country, so they made agreement, signed document, can't change the rules to suit majority, set in stone. Pakeha suck it up, move on .

[@No_auto_toon]

@@paulchristensen2573So Seymour is wrong for thinking the treaty is not racist?

[@themarsman5155]

@@townyboy3540 We don't rule over them.

[@bamargalinggam]

What is wrong to be equal. Why is there special treatment.

[@SykoYamakazian]

Give Maori back their land stolen then and then talk about equality after that

[@notmyrealname7738]

Because people only want to be equal If they personally benefit from them. Aka greed and egotistical.

[@deanlesliehawea506]

Nothing wrong with being equal. We just all want be equal at the start of the race.

[@tanepukenga1421]

What's equal about perpetual leases? About only being allowed 3% of redress when every other citizen is ENTITLED to 100% when it comes to criminal fraud? About not being able to challenge the foreshore and seabed Bill based on nothing more than the race we were born as? Oh - I get it now. You want a return to supremacy, not equality.

[@SykoYamakazian]

@@bamargalinggam everybody is already equal without this bill

[@mobbarley7517]

Debunk? Then I saw the former propagandist Mike McRoberts more unbiased journalism 😂

[@mxvega1097]

Some rather arch cherry-picking going on from Mr Modlik. If sovereignty was not ceded, in spite of the proclamation of May 1840, and parliament is illegitimate, then the TOW Act of 1975 is illegitimate, as are the courts, as are the findings of the Tribunal and advice to government, as are the settlements, including a very complex settlement with Ngati Toa. Is Helmut going to give back the Ngati Toa settlement in order to have a clean slate discussion with the Crown?

[@tracymichaelsen493]

@@mxvega1097 If it is all illegitimate. Are you leaving? Have your money. Good luck finding a country not fighting for freedom.Currency just like history is a mass of lies. Take your pick of what you want to believe. It's easy to herd sheep when all they've known is the farm and the dog running around to feed some stranger overseas for money not worth anything for a system that frankly hates you. Whilst your own are depressed and hungry. I'm not depressed nor hungry. I use useless money to buy poison to eat . I watch the hypnotic feeds programming me to hate you. I don't. I'm a human. I'm a female. I'm a Maori. All down hill after human? Know thy place in the world. It is where you stand. This is your home. It is my home. And if we do not stand together as the wolves are at the door , there will be nothing left for us to moan about. Moaning is inherently a kiwi trait. That and hard work.

[@cyttorak_nz]

How'd you get there? Seems like a reach.

[@Rhonda-z9q]

Well said. If the chiefs didnt cede sovereignty the British would have walked away leaving Maori and British settlers to slaughter each other. Maori would have had the upper hand and we wouldn't be discussing this today. Indeed most of us would not exist.

[@tanepukenga1421]

Sure, and you can then leave and give back the nation since you want to take it that way - which by the way, no Maori are asking for

[@serenasimpkin1946]

Interesting thought...

[@motherofcatsnz]

In many ways the Treaty was to deal with renegade Europeans and who was in control of them. Queen Victoria and her Government were used to giving rights and to working with other groups, ie the Scots and Welsh.

[@geofflewis8599]

..Not really. The key reason 512 rangatira agreed to accepting the rule of law under the leadership of the British Crown, was to bring to an end the 30-40 years of tribal warfare that had killed or displaced at least half the entire native, In that context, there was no point in retaining tino rangatiratanga - that would have just been a step back into the bloodshed they were trying to get away from..

[@I_Extinguish_I]

@@geofflewis8599 Let’s dig into it, because while it’s true that intertribal conflict (like the Musket Wars) caused significant upheaval, framing the Treaty as a surrender of tino rangatiratanga to avoid conflict is a serious oversimplification. First, the Musket Wars were largely over by the time Te Tiriti was signed in 1840. Many Māori had already begun rebuilding their communities and forming alliances. The Treaty wasn’t signed as a desperate plea for peace; it was a pragmatic agreement to protect Māori sovereignty (tino rangatiratanga) and bring order to the chaotic settler population. If the chiefs wanted to avoid bloodshed entirely, why would they insist on retaining authority over their lands, people, and taonga? Article 2 explicitly guarantees this, which doesn’t exactly scream “take it all, we give up.” Second, the idea that Māori saw no point in retaining tino rangatiratanga is just wrong. Māori leaders valued their mana and authority-they negotiated the Treaty to ensure these would be protected under Crown governance (kāwanatanga), not replaced by it. The Crown wasn’t invited to “save” Māori from themselves; it was brought in to manage unruly settlers and establish a framework for coexistence. Suggesting otherwise not only misreads the Treaty but also disregards the autonomy Māori leaders fiercely maintained. Let’s not rewrite history to fit modern narratives. The chiefs didn’t sign away tino rangatiratanga because they “had no other choice”; they signed to ensure their authority remained intact while creating space for law and order. That’s not surrender-it’s strategy.

[@tu9925]

@@geofflewis8599 learn your history Geoff Your wrong!!

[@geofflewis8599]

@@tu9925 there's another channel for pakeha apologists!

[@sox7784]

Go Dave

[@Malcom4850]

Well said David..!!

[@rihipaeahughes9831]

Maoriland is under scrutiny. The time has come to present our hitori fairly and truthfully. What is Act party so offended by in te tiriti that he wants to be rid of one of the significant parties

[@rotofotonz5150]

Awesome David fighting against separatists

[@JamesTimms-k2g]

you are the separatists. go hold hands with david

[@TracyBrown-p5h]

The crown and new Zealanders first started separatist not Maori learn your history new Zealander.

[@joshb6993]

​@@TracyBrown-p5hyou are right. The first peoples in aotearoa saw themselves as a unified people and lived in harmony with themselves and the land. Dream on

[@TracyBrown-p5h]

@joshb6993 did you think up this story all by yourself? .Your like David Your making up stories. Clown stick to Facts. This bill won't get past first reading. StillFlogging a dead horse.

[@rotofotonz5150]

@@JamesTimms-k2g 🤣 yeah because everyone having the same rights and responsibilitys is so hard for people like you to understand.Your race based privilege is a much better idea

[@food4thort]

Since no-one else seems willing to compare and debate the actual text of the Treaty (Maori version as translated on the Waitangi Tribunal website), and the Treaty Principles Bill, here they are: ToW - Article 1: The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land. ToW Bill - Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,-(a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society. ToW - Article 2: The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent. ToW Bill - Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. (2)However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. ToW - Article 3: For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England. ToW Bill - Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to-(a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.

[@geofflewis8599]

The principles set out in the bill as introduced are: Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws, (a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society. Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. (2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to (a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.

[@food4thort]

@@geofflewis8599 ​ These principles are already included in my initial comment. When you read them together its hard to see what the problem is. I suspect the real reason why those against the Bill don't want to tackle the substance of it is that the various 'treaty principles' invented by courts and the Waitangi Tribunal aren't actually in the ToW (eg partnership and active protection etc etc). They are 'tack-ons' that try to extend the ToW beyond what it plainly states.

[@Rhonda-z9q]

Before 1840 our history was shameful. If we had not had Te Tiriti Maori tribes would have wiped each other out.

[@tanepukenga1421]

How? Or better yet, why would they act unlike every other people in history?

[@raywheeler3135]

Like the Europeans did in WW1 and WW2?

[@MichaelCairns-fv2vi]

That ethnicity has been watered down...we all cappacino now

[@gregtorpey4219]

That's reality wake up you are conquered

[@djpomare]

Co-governance is in the treaty. Brits replaced rangatiratanga (run by local chiefs) into sovereignty (run by UK royals). The treaty house was set on fire but the treaty document still exists showing the details along with its burnt frayed edges. We've tried the colonial system for a hell of a long time and now is the time to give the actual documented deal a fair go. My tipuna, Pomare signed the treaty on 15 Feb 1840 and we're still waiting. Focus on getting in the waka and working together - Kiingi Tuheitia.

[@hamishglenn4900]

Which article talks about co-governance??

[@Sasquatch2696]

@@hamishglenn4900 article 1 states "The chiefs of the Confederation and all the chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land." article 2 states "The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures." The crown may govern the nation as a whole, the chiefs continue to lead their local areas as they did before.

[@tanepukenga1421]

@@hamishglenn4900 1, google next time

[@paulchristensen2573]

Ngati pakeha should appreciate even to be in aotearoa, kotahitanga is what maori bring to the table, not inequity and greed ,seymour is a little puppet ,wealthy are pulling his strings.

[@444TripleH]

If you want to be equal with ngati pakeha, why does majority of stats point to the fact that highest rate of crimes are committed by tangata whenua??

[@paulchristensen2573]

Percentage of ngati pakeha out number maori 30/ 1, so in retrospective ngati pakeha are in front , coalition and colonialism are at fault

[@444TripleH]

@@paulchristensen2573 thanks for not answering my questions.

[@paulchristensen2573]

We are all equal mate ,Bill of rights act defines that. Treaty about 3 ps, partnership, participation, protection. All in a nut shell.

[@emzRotorua123]

😇 Māori single handedly ended WW2 that’s all I ever needed to know. Seymoot is but one lonely halfcast with a lot of unanswered questions.

[@tindersurprise]

They made a great contribution in WW2. Don't know what you been smoking to get that tho lol. He's not lonely if you compare his/ACT's votes to Te Pati Maori. If you're talking about the treaty principles bill, polling on oct 10 showed 46% supported the bill, 25% opposed and 29% unsure. Just sayin 🤷‍♂️

[@emzRotorua123]

Not good enough for you? Typical..

[@Samuel-n7p2b]

If bullshit was Gold, Modlik would be filthy rich. Ive never heard so much BS in such a short time of speaking.

[@townyboy3540]

You must be a zillioneeerrrrrrrr

[@Samuel-n7p2b]

@@townyboy3540 You must think like you spell. Expand your mind, it might hurt a bit at first. You could even form a cognitive opinion ??

[@patrickhauraki8713]

Isn't the treaty like a contract between maori and queen constituents?

[@tanepukenga1421]

iwi and crown representatives which then became the NZ government.

[@tanepukenga1421]

Seymour's been lying about it being with our general 'race' or else anyone could say they weren't counted in it. It always has been with Iwi leaders representing our Iwi. It's part of Seymour's tactics to couch the argument in a racial debate instead of one between two groups. Don't fall for it

[@serenasimpkin1946]

So Maori leaders wish to return their people back to an autocratic society so they don't get to enjoy democracy? Times have changed a lot since queen Victoria. Their monarch is just a figurehead now correct? They have democracy and the right to vote although it's a bit of a mess over there at the moment, but a new election can change things, look at USA.

[@CaptainKuki]

This government is pitiful

[@lindsayepae]

Did not realize that rights of non-Māori in this country have been affected. There seems to be a fair number of Māori represented in government. What's the problem? A can of worms has been opened.

[@I_Extinguish_I]

We need to be treated equally as treaty partners. Māori have lived up to their deal of the side of the bargain as equal treaty partners. Now the crown and government need to uphold their side as equal partners.

[@stevenbrown8157]

Our past isnt emmbarrisng wtf is he talking about. wefought the super power of the time and bought them to offer savages a treaty 1st in history, trade of advance weopons of the time, wtf,,, something all maori should be proud off

[@natashakasparova335]

I don't think "savages" is a word that is very awful. The fact that people didn't have guns and rifles etc. Doesn't make them "savages".

[@Mark-g6l7i]

@@natashakasparova335 They wer Stoneage, waring, genocidal cannibalistic SAVAGES

[@hamishglenn4900]

@@natashakasparova335 They did have guns. The Māori fought the Crown after the Treaty was signed though.

[@tanepukenga1421]

@@hamishglenn4900 Way to pretend you missed the point - but we all see you and what you're trying to do

[@hamishglenn4900]

@@tanepukenga1421 ??? Please explain

[@TeTipiWhenua]

King George & our declaration of independance 1835, He Whakaputanga,1834 Te Kara the flag confederated chiefs, Seymour your dreaming mate!

[@ClintAndersen]

Yes.This is what should be shown to the population!

[@tracymichaelsen493]

@@TeTipiWhenua This is true. However it's not what's put on the table. Contracts with fork tongue pakeha and brown nosing Maori is. The new paper kills the old. What I say is. You can't make deals with the devil.

[@georgeminty6218]

The Courts are stacked with activist judges...Yeah Na !!!

[@jazyj99]

Maori were engaged with and fed into the Bill. As Gov. Hobson spoke in Te Reo to each and every Chief signing the Treaty, we are one People.

[@suehowie152]

I used to have time for David Seymour.That is no longer true.

[@grantroydhouse9723]

except you do not say why....

[@robtana2526]

David is just like Don Brash they will uphold Govener Grey and what he stood for.

[@shauntempley9757]

@@robtana2526 Yup. Grey is very much NZ's Oliver Cromwell. You know, the one that started the mess that lead to the Irish Troubles and the IRA bombings between 1910's to the 1990's. How can people be so stupid to follow similar falls, as it risks the Iwi turning into the NZ's IRA equivalent at the least, or Hamas at worst?

[@sipuman9337]

“Theres no change to the wording of the treaty…” continues to change the wording of the treaty.

[@Empathiclistener]

Which words are being changed?

[@rihipaeahughes9831]

When did Act party become an expert on maoridom

[@Empathiclistener]

I heard the fallacious claim that a majority Maori population in 1840 would never have ceded sovereignty to a few white fellas; on this occasion that claim was taken to an even more absurd level of 'that would have been totally impossible'. Well, that's wishful thinking given that the wording of Te Tiriti in all three Articles makes clear that signing meant the Crown would be sovereign over all in New Zealand, and given that the recorded speeches of rangatira at the time and during subsequent decades showed clearly that they understood they were being invited to agree to Crown sovereignty over them and their people and that they debated whether they should do so. I also heard blatant untruths and misrepresentations. Mr Modlik claimed that Seymour's Bill involved "...the idea that one party to that agreement can unilaterally change it.." But the Bill doesn't propose any change to Te Tiriti and in fact specifically rules that out. He also described the recent invention of fake principles (principles contradicted by both the wording of Te Tiriti and the content of speeches by rangatira at the time) as "a process of truth and reconciliation". Well, there may have been some effort to achieve reconciliation but truth is severely lacking for those recently-invented principles. Mr Modlik also claimed that ACT have "...got a vision for New Zealand that makes the Treaty disappear in any material sense unless Parliament tells us what it means". The full meaning of that word salad is a mystery but the claim that ACT's vision is to make Te Tiriti disappear is his own outlandish invention. The Bill simply defines some principles that are supported by Te Tiriti's wording and the historical evidence. Mr Modlik stated "...and we need to ensure that the truth is told"; well, let's hope he starts telling the truth sometime soon. The host of this video compilation Mr McRoberts (who made some effort to achieve some balance) made the claim that "At the heart of ACT's Bill is the proposal to replace the many Treaty principles that have been developed over decades with three new ones determined by Cabinet." Well, except for the second paragraph of 'Principle Two', the Bill's principles are not 'new' but were clearly evident in Te Tiriti's wording and understood by the rangatira at the time of signing and indeed by most everyone until the revisionists started their mischief in the 1970s. The recently-invented principles developed over decades since the 1970s were actually new inventions for which historical evidence is lacking.

[@Outlook2025]

After watching that, David is definitely clearer. Although, this chap doesn’t want to put it to a referendum, he thinks it should be defined by the individual parties involved. Crown and Maori. I also think that’s reasonable. But still, storm in a teacup.

[@drewest4619]

So mr Seymour, would you open up the doors to the house you own and let Māori live there, take control of your master bedroom and you continue to live there without any special treatment? Sounds like it wouldn’t be your house anymore. Good job dividing a nation though

[@RobHenare]

Two state nation is for all of us

[@serenasimpkin1946]

Why?

[@RobHenare]

@serenasimpkin1946 better for our people moving forward where we can manage our own finance for better off comes in health education and justice

[@serenasimpkin1946]

@RobHenare I'm interested in learning more. Currently, we use the European invention of democracy (one vote for all), but not all Pacific nations use this model, correct? Fiji used to have a monarchy, but they eventually became a Republic. If Pakeha remained in a democracy, what leadership style do the Iwi and Hapu want to return to? The intention of democracy is to avoid tyranny. A new leader can be voted in every 3 years or more. My hope is for good outcomes for all your people in every iwi. Thank you for taking the time to answer my earlier question. Arohanui.

[@jonathanmckeage8222]

What it really about is iwi is scare that they're going to lose power over hapu and give more power to hapu

[@toshadavinci5379]

Seymour is cementing ACTs position in the next government, hes a poularist. The treaty ended Maori warlords committing genocide on other maori. Kiwis are over the waitangi tribunal industry and bias time to move on. Albeit Helmut had good points.

[@Sasquatch2696]

you obviously don't know the definition of genocide.

[@Mark-g6l7i]

@@Sasquatch2696 Maori murdered over 60% of their own population and wiped out the Moriori. Looks like GENOCIDE to me

[@Sasquatch2696]

@@Mark-g6l7i No, genocide is the systematic murder of a people with the intention to wipe out a complete group of people. The Maori did not committ genocide on themselves, they warred and fought amongst each other as all people have. That is not the same as genocide. If the intention was to wipe out their own people, then that would be genocide, but it clearly was not. By this logic, that war = genocide, then every single nation on the planet has committed genocide. Simply untrue.

[@Sasquatch2696]

@@Mark-g6l7i furthermore, the Moriori were not wiped out, they still exist today. Not that anyone would know since no one does research these days

[@gouldmcclay]

​@@Sasquatch2696so some moriori survived only because they hid away from the cannibals...there i fixed it for you

[@I_Extinguish_I]

You don’t rewrite the rules of a partnership without both partners at the table. Māori voices are being sidelined in this process, and that’s straight-up wrong. Respect the partnership, or don’t call it one.

[@Empathiclistener]

What partnership? Anyway, Maori are not being sidelined at all. They are able to speak and debate as you see in this video, and the Bill wants a referendum that all Maori can vote in just like everyone else.

[@BradleyT-x4b]

They did not seed sovereignty on their own land if they sold it. They cede their sovereignty

[@SCG-o2k]

Why fix something that ain’t broke

[@Outlook2025]

Doesn’t sound like NZ has any real problems. Who cares if they want to define it. At least there’s no problem in the future with interpretations. I don’t see what the fuss is about. No real problems, living the good life.

[@MG-fr3tn]

Listen to them all, some are inspiring and some are sleazy. They say whats in the heart. Addressing wrongs is one thing, discriminating is detrimental to the nation. Discerining yes .

[@logicalanswer3529]

David wiped the floor with all of them. They had very little facts and ran heavily on emotions.

[@raywheeler3135]

You lack facts and logical answers as usual

[@grantwatson9232]

7.55 What's the TE REO for "Hypocrisy"? This type of biased "opinion" is not helpful to the cause.

[@DW_Kiwi]

Get the truth of history out there. Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown. Period!!

[@townyboy3540]

And you were there daggy dave?? 😆I think not . Period!!

[@naomicassidy485]

Tribunal already confirmed that Ngapuhi didn't cede sovereignty.

[@Sasquatch2696]

have you read te tiriti? honestly, it's free online bro.

[@naomicassidy485]

@David-sc7hx yeah it depends who's interpreting, dialects differ from tribe to tribe. What one word means in one doesn't necessarily have the same meaning another.

[@naomicassidy485]

Have read te paparahi o Te raki report. The report is for the Northern tribes. It's online too.

[@MG-fr3tn]

People should put themselves 2nd, yes that's right. Stop bottom trawling and invest in a better device. That will benefit us all the most.

[@matty_mccarthy]

Bro where is the full debate?

[@daisyandcoffee1]

doing the same in NZ like you did in Canada with the indigenous tribes .. very dangerous divisive man David Seymour . A wolve in sheeps clothing

[@agewiggins8192]

The only relevant question is did Māori cede sovereignty?

[@moniquebode1655]

@@agewiggins8192 I believe that they did because there were so many tribal wars so in order to have peace Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

[@AntoniaAllison-v8d]

The concept that Queen Victoria gave sovereignty to Māori while sending British settlers to settle in New Zealand at the same time is ludicrous. And why would she do this to New Zealand only and not to all the other countries that the British settled in around the world? Especially as the Māori were known by the British for their fighting skills. Let keep this realistic and understand that we are all equal especially as a nation needing to move forward as one.

[@TracyBrown-p5h]

Your making up stories now like David semore.Stick to the facts .National,New zealand first, labour, Greens,Maori and the churches ,Maori party don't support this bill. It won't get past second reading. What a waste of time and money. Wake up people,facts

[@robtana2526]

My understanding is Queen Victoria supported what the Kiingitanaga stood for and supported the movement. Davids bill goes against that arrangement between the British Monarchy and the Kiingitanga. I never learnt about the treaty of Waitangi because i moved to Australia when i was 11 or 10 and and i remember my Greek history teacher Mr Tsaredis in high school giving a talk about colonialism and the atrocities inflicted on the Aboriginal it was awful no words can describe what the Aboriginal people faced i remember my history teacher saying how they were the only people who were in Australia long before whiteman came from Europe or anywhere from the northern hemisphere he spke of how New Zealand was the only country on this planet that had a legal binding document a treaty designed to protect all things linked to Maori and this goes back to the Kiingitanga movement and what it's intentions were to be with the British Monarchy Queen Victoria.

[@Sasquatch2696]

The crown gave governance of their lands to Maori because they were unable to defeat them in war. It was costly to carry on fighting in a land so far away from England, the supply costs and so on were astronomical, particularly at the time where ships took months to arrive and often didn't even make it. Like you said, the Maori were known as fierce fighters, and their knowledge of the land proved to be an important factor. This kind of defeat (and yes I call it a defeat because the crown only took total governance of the land via dishonorable means with two different versions of a treaty saying very different things) occurred when the invading force could not definitively subdue the indigenous population. For example, Spain's invasion of Chile from 1546. It's not that the crown started a partnership out of nowhere, they simply couldn't win the war, then bullshitted their way to total governance and now, this government is attempting to completely destroy the meaning of the deal the Maori initially signed without consulting them. Have you ever actually read Te Tiriti? Article 2, check it out, it's free online.

[@robtana2526]

@@AntoniaAllison-v8d you are aware that while our 28 maori battalion along with a b c and d company were being sent to fight someone elses war while we had land wars right here at home. Why dont you tell me about the Rangiriri land wars.

[@charleswalker2484]

@@Sasquatch2696 lmao this is such a dishonest take I wonder if you learnt it from NZ school system or what?

[@jasonmarshall7572]

I get annoyed by this colonial evils of the past! If you look back to those days life qas way different to todays laws and moral standards. Back then both sides had people that commited Grape, Murders, Land stealing. That both Europeans and Maori but add the fact Maori where killing each other taking slaves and some where eaten so to bring peace the British had to bring unity and laws. Add this if their is no soverenty between Maori or the British then Maori should not follow British Laws, Maori would lose the protection of the crown, Maori would loose all education and medical help and all welfare help including housing and as for land disputes sure the rest can be sorted but any land already owned and occupied would remain in British hands and if Maori rose up against this would mean War?. So are we one country sharing lives and family with each other or are we two divided enemies?. Someone needs to sort this rubbish out once and for all so we all could carry on with Aroha and peace.

[@bodietihoihuitoroataylor6722]

Seymor has a platform, and we'll meet him on the platform with thousands of rangatira!!!! The three headed taniwha, meets the Taniwharau

[@mobbarley7517]

You do that we will keep working to pay the tax required to keep the lights on

[@tanepukenga1421]

@@mobbarley7517 What a racist assumption to assume Maori don't work. I do. I pay taxes. I also gave my five employees the day off if they wanted to join the protests in my city and gave them the option to take annual leave to join the hikoi. But you're a perfect example of the racism we're fighting against.

[@bodietihoihuitoroataylor6722]

@@tanepukenga1421 use this Rasicist Jargon. I know I sholdn't be but hey these are the people we continue to put with.

[@raywheeler3135]

If you are a Pakeha landlord you don't work or pay taxes

[@paulchristensen2573]

Treaty nothing to do with democracy, between crown and maori, honor, move ,document signed and sealed, move on bigotry no place in politics .

[@serenasimpkin1946]

Between queen and iwi leaders? Both wanted peace for their subjects. The colonisers were looking for a fresh start in a new land halfway around the world. Maybe misled by promises of abundance that wasn't theirs to give. My question though is why is democracy bad? Autocracy gives power to the select few. It represses the civil liberties of the people and chooses what liberties they may exercise. Do you want to loose your right to vote?

[@Rhonda-z9q]

So you agree te Tiriti was not a verbal agreement Helmut?

[@realredsheep5405]

David Seymour, virtue signaler extraordinaire. I sure love the idea of spending millions of dollars on a referendum which changes absolutely nothing.

[@StGammon77]

Oh it will change you watch

[@stephenlennon7369]

​​@@StGammon77 watching?

[@bodietihoihuitoroataylor6722]

wasting time and resources Seymor, I would rather concentrate on housing

[@ianrobinson4200]

It's already happened, the flag referendum during the Key govt, $26m down the drain

[@charleswalker2484]

leftoids don't get to talk about wasting money.

[@accessaryman]

oh my, helmet believer those who signed the treaty were ignorant savages, does he not think that maori were learning from the sealers, whalers and those who were settling here in the previous 50 years or so prior to the signing of the treaty in 1840, let just look at that period a lot closer, maori arrived in new zealand around 1300 AD, who were tribal, learning to live in the land they had arrived to, a mere 400 year later europeans started coming to new zealand, as soon as that happen maori were learning of a new culture, a different maybe easier way of life, new ways of gathering food growing new varieties of food, new ways of making clothes, new building techniques, to which they enjoyed and excelled with, all the while in that time were involved in tribal wars, taking slaves and still involved in cannibalism, then a group of maori chief wrote to king william asking for him to treat with them, to restore law and order amongst the tribes and those who were coming here, and protect them all from the french coming here and claim the land for themselves, when looking into it maori got what they asked for and the majority of maori have accepted what their ancestors got them, and appreciate what and where maori have come from and headed to. for helmet to say they were ignorant is disrespectful, and a lie, i stop short of calling it treason, but it certainly sounds like he is being that way towards maori.

[@LanceHaenga]

Seamonster b gone then we change it again

[@tracymichaelsen493]

There is 2 signatories ,parties to the Treaty. Crown and Maori. Now that fact is to be changed to exclude Maori. Yet the Crown will not loose any standing. Maori will become chattels as the rest of the peasants. We said no from the very start. We saw how pakeha treat pakeha. So we made sure not to be them. If we do not fight to remain Maori what future would we have. We most certainly would not be equal. We would be silenced. Set aside . Ignored. It doesnt matter what wef and the other 1% of nutterz do in the world that this puppet govt panders to. Maori will not take instuctions from idiots who believe its their way or nothing. Threats are fuel.

[@johnhigh-z5g]

These idiots you speak of built one of the greatest nations in the world. Under the only system that works. One person, one vote. Its called democracy. Its the only fair way to live. In NZ all people are protected as are their rights. Maori were occupied by a superpower, that doesnt do partnerships. Can the Maori cheifs defend our country from Asian or Russian invasion ?? Of course not, that is why we have foreign allies, are part of an existing empire, and we are protected within that hierarchical structure. This guy is trying to unravel the consitutional basis for our nation.......... he is on dangerous ground, and it wont end well for Maori. Because there is a nation of people here to consider. Under Te Tiriti , all Maori rights and lands etc are protected. Everyone has the right to an education, to work hard , to acheive........But Maori constantly appear to have a chip on their shoulder, blaming everyone else but them selves......for their postion.

[@tracymichaelsen493]

@johnhigh-z5g There is no honor or justification for colonization and its theft, fullstop. You cannot build upon sand. No matter how much rubbish you try to reinforce its structural integrity with

[@Sasquatch2696]

@@johnhigh-z5g why tf would Asia (which btw is multiple countries, saying Asian invasion is insane, since many Asian countries don't even like each other) or Russia invade us? Not even during the World Wars did anyone try to invade New Zealand. If that empire was so great, why weren't they able to subdue and get total capitulation from the Maori 200 years ago? The constitutional document you refer to states Maori should be able to govern their lands, but this was ignored. How has this constitutional document oppressed non-Maori people? I too am non-Maori, I can't think of a proper example where I am being oppressed.

[@tanepukenga1421]

Well said

[@charleswalker2484]

@@Sasquatch2696 "why weren't they able to subdue and get total capitulation from the Maori 200 years ago?" if you read NZ history you would know the answer to this question. A treaty where they give up governorship of their lands is capitulation anyway so it's a crazy thing to say. You're not being 'oppressed' but there are poltical entities which go around the democractic process to make choices about resource consent for example. That's what ACT wants to remove because they are a 'fake woke' corporatist party with super machiavellian tactics. honestly I think this whole thing is just their way to attack national party for not being right wing enough for their base. I know for a fact David hates national party more than anyone.

[@peterhickey728]

Actually, we did get lessons on NZ's colonial history back in the mid-fifties in primary school (Blockhouse Bay) long before Helmut was born. So he's talking rubbish. I recall one documentary, "The First 100 Years" ( the film was NZ's history for the 100 years after Te Tiriti was signed). The film was a bit "cheesy" by today's standards, but informative for a seven-year-old. We also knew about Waitangi Day although our understanding of the Treaty was limited. Helmut claims to be "educated". Well, he should try reading both sides of the debate with an open mind. Te Tiriti was a document written only as a temporary expedient. Hell, it was only completed just before the signing. There is no doubt, that we Maori had land stolen but I never heard my Koru who rarely communicated in English, speak of Te Tiriti, yet it was his generation that had the real grievances.

[@charleswalker2484]

Ive seen that video on Archives New Zealand. An old style film quite interesting.

[@shauntempley9757]

@@charleswalker2484 Also wrong. I have seen that film, and everything in it is as bad as Seymour's take on this. The only things worse was an American Black race relations film, and a South African race relations film from the same time period. Which is totally shocking, and sickening.

[@charleswalker2484]

@@shauntempley9757 what specifically is wrong in it? They lived closer to the actual time than us so why would we know better?

[@shauntempley9757]

@@charleswalker2484 Because they were actively suppressing the real history of the Treaty, and the confiscations and the attacks. This was also the decade where Bastion Point was a Maori town destroyed by soldiers, because rich Pakeha wanted the views of the harbour for their properties. Suppressed and buried, until the 70's and 80's. Even a journalist reporting it got killed, because he refused to stay quiet.

[@charleswalker2484]

@@shauntempley9757 So you're saying it's a one sided colonial view of things and that they were distorting not only history but even current events through the media? This fits the bill of the NZ media who are still liars who just say whatever they're told so im inclined to believe it. I will look up Bastion point im too young to know about that.

[@guyl9208]

"Replace the treaty principles" What are the Principles???? Lol

[@deanspanley4472]

Race Based Privilege is representative of being way of life in Apartheid South Africa 🎉😂 But if what you're supportive of ones racial identity, affords some more Medical, Educational and various other privileges, decided on the Time, Be Happy 😂🎉😢😮😅😊

[@murrayclarke2171]

This doesn’t seem like a neutral debate. Two guys being as Maori as they can be. And I’m neutral on this one. Prefer that we draw a line which should have been the Tribunal. But seems not to have been.

[@tanepukenga1421]

David is the only one pushing to take rights away. What most don't realise it it affects them too. Principal 1 for instance takes away YOUR and every other kiwi's right to stop a government if they decide that you no longer have a right to healthcare without paying X a third of your wages. Or that you no longer deserve breaks at work. "Full power" is lawyer speak for unilateral - meaning that court challenges wouldn't be legal. Like the ones that exposed 1 in 3 kids in state care had been physically or sexually abused by their 'caretakers'.

[@johndavy8973]

One sided

[@Ngatikahu-aka-panbadass]

buahaha he called him David Seman

[@stephenlennon7369]

David semen 😅

[@peterihimaera3204]

😂😂

[@joshb6993]

Genius. Do you crack yourself up often?

[@susanpockett4314]

That's a lovely tiki, Mike. Much nicer than Helmut Modlik's lump of greenstone. Guess McRoberts is a more Maori name than Modlik. But honestly all this talk about "partnership" is ridiculous. Have you people never actually READ the Treaty of Waitangi?? I'm sick to death of this rewriting of history. I wish we could just abandon the British Commonwealth altogether and become a Republic. That would make the Treaty a historical curiosity, which in my view is what it deserves to be.

[@robbyoung69]

Partnership but none Maori pay and Maori get. Give Maori what they want but they have to pay for EVERYTHING themselves. 😂

[@joshherlihy8684]

A lot of disingenuous premise so coming from this guy.. such as “one size fits all health state” for example.. that’s not a factual or truthful statement.. it’s a misleading premise because it isn’t that at all. Quite the opposite. It’s based on health needs which are universal regardless of ancestry. What he disguises in those kind of misleading premises is his actual position.. which is health care must treat people not according to health news but according to their race fundamentally. Obviously he cannot just come out and say that so he play’s linguistic gymnastics using false premises to support his opinion. He say “the experts have confirmed “ as of that means all the experts who have ever looked at the treaty and ignores the numerous experts who disagree with his stated opinions on the matter. It’s hard to take him seriously when his rhetoric is laden with this kind of misleading and dishonest information. Up until 1970s there was near total unanimous opinion amongst experts that completely refute what he says. Good on people like Seymour who are challenging this kind of attempts to mislead the public and for making it possible for this issue to be drawn out from the closed doors of academia and judicial capture and finally give everyone in the country a voice on the matter rather than unelected administrators and academics who have no official representation or accountability to the people of NZ. 👍👍 .. I love it how this dude call people with pale skin “Anglo Saxon” shows the actual depth of his intellect.

[@Sasquatch2696]

Health needs are not universal. There are hundreds of studies backing this. Ancestry does not come into it as much as different cultures and the way the system is in place in different regions in relation to these cultures. The issue is FAR more nuanced and difficult than you are putting it. Anglo Saxon is quite a silly way to put it tho. Edit: If you want links to studies, I can give you links

[@tanepukenga1421]

When that "justification" was "They're brown and therefore savages who are too primitive to form a nation!", that's not a valid opinion.

[@slappiedayz]

He's aiming to undermine luxon with this bill and all policy have the same agenda so desperate to be prime minister it's a smoke screen

[@murraystockman134]

Dripple

[@slappiedayz]

@murraystockman134 the only dripple is your spelling put your glasses on old man

[@tanepukenga1421]

It's worse than that, principal 1 of his bill stops people from challenging the government in any form. If this existed 10 years ago and went through, we'd have never been allowed to stop the people who sexually and physically abused 1 in 3 kids in state care. You also won't be allowed to challenge them if they decide you no longer deserve breaks or any other right they choose. "full power" is a very dangerous thing to give someone.

[@charleswalker2484]

totally agree with this

[@bodietihoihuitoroataylor6722]

Aotearoa have a treaty, how carve this partnership is now, here Seymour lets go.

[@Mark-g6l7i]

Where?

[@tanepukenga1421]

Cause all partnerships are based on domination and unilateral changing of agreements, rights?

[@serenasimpkin1946]

Life has moved on since queen Victoria. Kings and Queens are pretty much defunct in Europe, little more then figureheads, and democracy is a way of life. Except for the odd tyrant "ahem" Russia... But I do want to learn more about how a true partnership would look like in Aotearoa, New Zealand. At the moment all have the right to vote which sees a swing in paliament every 4 years or more. What would a mix of democracy and autocracy look like? Can it work?

[@bodietihoihuitoroataylor6722]

@@serenasimpkin1946 Yep it can work and is working right now through co governance. You tube has many examples of all partners coming together.

[@mareeauld5778]

Follow the money The greedy moaris at the top are worried the gravy train is leaving the station

[@albertmarsh282]

You colonisers are not a race aye Dave,that's why your saying human

[@PeterHooper-o3h]

IM PRETTY SYRE NATIONAL. VOTERS. STARTED SEYMOUR😮