David Seymour

[R650R]

Now you are arguing with things I didn't write. As for Seymour we didn't have thousands of people marching on Parliament until he stared it up. If Luxon's telling the truth though it's all for nothing.

[F5 Dave]

you either agree with seymore or you agree with the tattoo face baboon in the cowboy hat

Ooh. Appearance. That's a good tried and true way to judge a message.

So what did the baboon say? (As obviously that's the way we are swinging here).

[sugilite:Me]

I've been pondering if and when to share my opinion on this one, and finally here I am. Yes this is a VERY long post (or 2 depending on kb post word limits), skip to the end for the one paragraph summary if you don't like long posts.

Everyone has a different take influenced by their own lifes experiences and reality. Mine are thus, I'm Pakeha, my biological 4 children are Maori – about 30% according to DNA tests. I was involved in my ex wifes family for 26 years. Like many Maori families, this one is huuuge. Due to the women in the family being very shall we say “combative” all the Maori men in the family had done runners and token white guy here actually did the Whanau Kōrero/Whakapapa etc at events such as Tangis, weddings and so on. With my sternest test being me doing the above at a Mongrel Mob wedding (only white guy there) with over 200 gang members in attendance – the kicker? The union was between Ngpuhi and Ngati Porou which if course historically hate each other. Walking on eggshells was a rock stable platform in comparison! Having said all that, in no way do I speak for Maori on issues relating to them.

I'm going to link to 2 videos below that I watched before writing this. I will start with the video interviewing Debbie Ngarewa-Packer co-leader of Te Pāti Māori party. She is well spoken and my initial respect levels were high. However, as the interview went on, that level did subside somewhat.
She showed that the politician is strong in her when she could not bring herself to say that Maori had rights that the rest do not, She desperately was trying to frame it as they have more “responsibilities”. If one has to use such language it is generally because they deem their argument to be unpalatable in it's truest form. If course Maori have certain rights that are not available to non Maori, and for me personally I have never taken any sort of umbrage in that, it bothers me personally not at all. My children have never applied for Maori only grants or in other ways been advantaged by these laws. Ironically the only medical centre that took myself and American wife in around these parts was the local iwi run clinic!

In my view, the current state of the treaty and how it effects our laws and so on is about as imperfectly perfect as could be hoped for. There is no perfect solution.
I do agree with Ngarewa-Packer that it needs to be the courts that further clarify and define the principles. The crown are a biased party and should not have that power. Ngarewa-Packer wants the treaty tribunal to have more teeth, where as I'm comfortable with the teeth they currently have. Ngarewa-Packer does go on about the right wing Atlas Collective having their fingerprints all over this bill Seymour has bought forward. More on that later.

Sovereignty – If what I have heard in regards to the Te Pāti Māori party wanting complete separation such as own police force, justice system etc is true, that is simply never going to fly, and our current system of laws etc simply does not allow them opportunity to really make any meaningful progress to meet their aim. So I'm not worrying about that coming to be at all. I do see our resident red under every bed is saying they want to create a marxist state. I think it is hardly surprising a proud race of people would like to govern themselves, and parts of that may look like or have aspects of marxism in it, I do not see it as outright attempt at marxism. But it does make a wonderful sound bite for the right to rark up support for the rights agenda. The largest internal problem that Maori would have with sovereignty is, who among them would wield this power? The separate tribes are hardly known for cooperation, unity and kumbaybloodyya among each other.

Back to the Ngarewa-Packer interview – I did find it ironic when she said that the treaty should not be bought forward for debate by a party with only 8% support – when she herself is representing a minority that wants to heavily influence the majority. When she was asked if the hīkoi was a recruitment drive and had her party received new registrations – the co leader claimed she had no idea. Bull fucking shit and further erosion of her credibility for me ensued.

I understand and can sympathise with why Maori are alarmed by this bill. Governments are hard to trust at the best of times, and they as a people have endured a lot of bad faith acts from respective nz Governments in the past.

OK, onto the other sides view. At this point, I will reveal my party vote went to Act in the last election. My electorate vote went to a labour mp who I felt would do the better job in their local area than any of the other shitty candidates on offer. MMP in action right there. The main reason I voted for Act when choosing which was the best dead rat party vote to swallow was that Seymour promised to cut red tape when it came to resource consents and so on. I do not agree with a lot of what Seymour stands for, but I do view him as one of the more trustworthy politicians as he does seem to do what he says he is going to – imo. The thrust of all that is I place cutting red tape and needless wanton bureaucracy wherever possible very highly. It is something that ultimately benefits every New Zealander no matter their political leaning, well except a handful of politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers – boo fucking hoo.

I feel Seymour sincerely believes he wants New Zealanders to have equal rights, however I also believe that his corporate donor overlords want to castrate that pesky treaty in order to exploit New Zealands natural resources. As they say, the devil is in the details. And for me, the devil for Maoris and thus protection of natural resources is in Principle 2, article 2 of the bill. “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. “. This is where the corporates will get the crow bar and pillage the resources that otherwise would have been protected.
The corporates moan about how it is inconvenient and time wasting to deal with iwi. I feel when it comes to the few natural resources and landscapes we do have left in this country - it should be bloody inconvenient to pillage them for often what is short term gains and all too often cause irreversible damage.
Both sides have mentioned the sea bed mining project in South Taranaki. As I write this, I need only look out the window to my right and gaze down at the very stretch of water in question. The local community as a whole has been fighting this for a long time, and they view the local Iwi as being the ultimate gate keeper in keeping the sea bed from being destroyed in the name of minerals that are not particularly hard to find elsewhere.
I'm sick of corporations saying we have nothing to worry about despite what studies of deep sea mining show, only to throw their hands up at the end and go, what a shame, we did not expect that and then take off into the sunset with their profits.

In Seymours video - he says look we have ended up with a separate Maori Health Authority and the need to consult Maori in resource consents. He then mentioned co governance on 3 waters – a dead in the water bill that never came to be. That tells me Seymour has not got that many issues of Maori having more rights than the rest of us to really go on about. Considering the state of Maori health, I do not have a problem with them having their own authority, and I support them being involved in resource consent issues. (despite my feeling that red tape needs to be cut in this country). I do feel that Maori could buy a lot of goodwill if they were to streamline cultural reports and so on in the sense that there will be a lot of overlap and a “brand new” cultural report does not need to be generated for every infrastructure project, just amend one that has been done before to reflect nuances a particular project may have. I won't shed tears for the lawyers and writers that currently make a profit from this “industry”.

In the interview below, Seymour was saying how he does not agree with the Maori Language being in schools and complaining that parents can not opt their children out from it, and it would take time away from maths, English and science. IMO this is a steaming pile of bullshit. Do parents have the choice of opting their kids out of any other subject at school bar maybe sex ed? Can schools not create a curriculum that takes in more than just maths, English and science?
To my knowledge, Maori language is not a compulsory subject schools are even required to teach. So misdirection from Seymour there – for me trying to make issues bigger than what they actually are is not a ringing endorsement ones bill stands on it's own merit.
I found it particularly interesting when the interviewer asked Seymour what does he feel in regards to whether the principles covered all New Zealanders or just Maori? He seems to feel the interpretation of the Maori version of the treaty says all New Zealanders, despite Maori scholars and such saying yeah nah, just Maori. And when it was put to him the English version of the treaty actually specifies just Maori, Seymour tried to dismiss the English version as not being considered in this conversation. If one treaty clarifies the other, for me at least it does have relevance. I get why Seymour is keen to dismiss it as it leaves an extremely large turd floating in the punch bowl he is attempting to sell New Zealanders on.

I feel if Seymour was sincere about wanting to cut back on red tape and cut down on costs of consent, he would be more actively working on cutting these things within the scope of what he does have power over, that being Government itself, and to a lesser extent local bodies who have no end of opportunities to cull the regulatory madness currently in place down to size. I do not count cutting Government jobs, in some cases to NZ's detriment as “cutting red tape”.

So in summary.
I feel we have two extremes here. A determined Te Pāti Māori party with supporters that want to set up full sovereignty and all that entails that certainly does have aspects of marxism in their plans. But at the end of the day, they have no real way forward of seriously advancing that plan.
On the other side we have Seymour and supporters that I have no doubt do include right wing groups wanting to pillage resources to enrich themselves putting up a slick package designed to make the “have nots” feel aggrieved and hard done by in order to advance their greed based aspirations.
As ever somewhere in the middle of two extremes lies balance. Which I feel is exactly what we have in place right now.
The bill is supposedly dead, long may that be the case.

P.S. (I know - groan) What I would like to see is NZ Elections be funded by tax payers. No more corporate “donations” or donations of any kind.
Like America, NZ has corruption baked into our political system from the get go. These donors always have an outcome in mind for their “investment”. To my mind this is not a democracy as optimal as it possibly could be.
The Government is put there by the people for the people. As soon as corporate money gets involved, the concept of Government actually working for the people gets shoved out the door.
So no more donations, no more lobbyists with offices in the parliament. I'm not saying corporate business should be out in the cold with no say. They should absolutely be consulted by Government on a huge raft of issues, and their information be reviewed. If deemed worthy, then implemented by competent and qualified Government staff – but no fucking “leverage donations” should ever be entertained.
I would also advocate for Government department heads/ministers to be paid highly enough that skilled and competent experts in their field can be hired. A small price to pay for qualified decisions to benefit all New Zealanders moving forward.

[TheDemonLord]

I've been pondering if and when to share my opinion on this one, and finally here I am. Yes this is a VERY long post (or 2 depending on kb post word limits), skip to the end for the one paragraph summary if you don't like long posts.

Everyone has a different take influenced by their own lifes experiences and reality. Mine are thus, I'm Pakeha, my biological 4 children are Maori – about 30% according to DNA tests. I was involved in my ex wifes family for 26 years. Like many Maori families, this one is huuuge. Due to the women in the family being very shall we say “combative” all the Maori men in the family had done runners and token white guy here actually did the Whanau Kōrero/Whakapapa etc at events such as Tangis, weddings and so on. With my sternest test being me doing the above at a Mongrel Mob wedding (only white guy there) with over 200 gang members in attendance – the kicker? The union was between Ngpuhi and Ngati Porou which if course historically hate each other. Walking on eggshells was a rock stable platform in comparison! Having said all that, in no way do I speak for Maori on issues relating to them.

I'm going to link to 2 videos below that I watched before writing this. I will start with the video interviewing Debbie Ngarewa-Packer co-leader of Te Pāti Māori party. She is well spoken and my initial respect levels were high. However, as the interview went on, that level did subside somewhat.
She showed that the politician is strong in her when she could not bring herself to say that Maori had rights that the rest do not, She desperately was trying to frame it as they have more “responsibilities”. If one has to use such language it is generally because they deem their argument to be unpalatable in it's truest form. If course Maori have certain rights that are not available to non Maori, and for me personally I have never taken any sort of umbrage in that, it bothers me personally not at all. My children have never applied for Maori only grants or in other ways been advantaged by these laws. Ironically the only medical centre that took myself and American wife in around these parts was the local iwi run clinic!

In my view, the current state of the treaty and how it effects our laws and so on is about as imperfectly perfect as could be hoped for. There is no perfect solution.
I do agree with Ngarewa-Packer that it needs to be the courts that further clarify and define the principles. The crown are a biased party and should not have that power. Ngarewa-Packer wants the treaty tribunal to have more teeth, where as I'm comfortable with the teeth they currently have. Ngarewa-Packer does go on about the right wing Atlas Collective having their fingerprints all over this bill Seymour has bought forward. More on that later.

Sovereignty – If what I have heard in regards to the Te Pāti Māori party wanting complete separation such as own police force, justice system etc is true, that is simply never going to fly, and our current system of laws etc simply does not allow them opportunity to really make any meaningful progress to meet their aim. So I'm not worrying about that coming to be at all. I do see our resident red under every bed is saying they want to create a marxist state. I think it is hardly surprising a proud race of people would like to govern themselves, and parts of that may look like or have aspects of marxism in it, I do not see it as outright attempt at marxism. But it does make a wonderful sound bite for the right to rark up support for the rights agenda. The largest internal problem that Maori would have with sovereignty is, who among them would wield this power? The separate tribes are hardly known for cooperation, unity and kumbaybloodyya among each other.

Back to the Ngarewa-Packer interview – I did find it ironic when she said that the treaty should not be bought forward for debate by a party with only 8% support – when she herself is representing a minority that wants to heavily influence the majority. When she was asked if the hīkoi was a recruitment drive and had her party received new registrations – the co leader claimed she had no idea. Bull fucking shit and further erosion of her credibility for me ensued.

I understand and can sympathise with why Maori are alarmed by this bill. Governments are hard to trust at the best of times, and they as a people have endured a lot of bad faith acts from respective nz Governments in the past.

OK, onto the other sides view. At this point, I will reveal my party vote went to Act in the last election. My electorate vote went to a labour mp who I felt would do the better job in their local area than any of the other shitty candidates on offer. MMP in action right there. The main reason I voted for Act when choosing which was the best dead rat party vote to swallow was that Seymour promised to cut red tape when it came to resource consents and so on. I do not agree with a lot of what Seymour stands for, but I do view him as one of the more trustworthy politicians as he does seem to do what he says he is going to – imo. The thrust of all that is I place cutting red tape and needless wanton bureaucracy wherever possible very highly. It is something that ultimately benefits every New Zealander no matter their political leaning, well except a handful of politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers – boo fucking hoo.

I feel Seymour sincerely believes he wants New Zealanders to have equal rights, however I also believe that his corporate donor overlords want to castrate that pesky treaty in order to exploit New Zealands natural resources. As they say, the devil is in the details. And for me, the devil for Maoris and thus protection of natural resources is in Principle 2, article 2 of the bill. “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. “. This is where the corporates will get the crow bar and pillage the resources that otherwise would have been protected.
The corporates moan about how it is inconvenient and time wasting to deal with iwi. I feel when it comes to the few natural resources and landscapes we do have left in this country - it should be bloody inconvenient to pillage them for often what is short term gains and all too often cause irreversible damage.
Both sides have mentioned the sea bed mining project in South Taranaki. As I write this, I need only look out the window to my right and gaze down at the very stretch of water in question. The local community as a whole has been fighting this for a long time, and they view the local Iwi as being the ultimate gate keeper in keeping the sea bed from being destroyed in the name of minerals that are not particularly hard to find elsewhere.
I'm sick of corporations saying we have nothing to worry about despite what studies of deep sea mining show, only to throw their hands up at the end and go, what a shame, we did not expect that and then take off into the sunset with their profits.

In Seymours video - he says look we have ended up with a separate Maori Health Authority and the need to consult Maori in resource consents. He then mentioned co governance on 3 waters – a dead in the water bill that never came to be. That tells me Seymour has not got that many issues of Maori having more rights than the rest of us to really go on about. Considering the state of Maori health, I do not have a problem with them having their own authority, and I support them being involved in resource consent issues. (despite my feeling that red tape needs to be cut in this country). I do feel that Maori could buy a lot of goodwill if they were to streamline cultural reports and so on in the sense that there will be a lot of overlap and a “brand new” cultural report does not need to be generated for every infrastructure project, just amend one that has been done before to reflect nuances a particular project may have. I won't shed tears for the lawyers and writers that currently make a profit from this “industry”.

In the interview below, Seymour was saying how he does not agree with the Maori Language being in schools and complaining that parents can not opt their children out from it, and it would take time away from maths, English and science. IMO this is a steaming pile of bullshit. Do parents have the choice of opting their kids out of any other subject at school bar maybe sex ed? Can schools not create a curriculum that takes in more than just maths, English and science?
To my knowledge, Maori language is not a compulsory subject schools are even required to teach. So misdirection from Seymour there – for me trying to make issues bigger than what they actually are is not a ringing endorsement ones bill stands on it's own merit.
I found it particularly interesting when the interviewer asked Seymour what does he feel in regards to whether the principles covered all New Zealanders or just Maori? He seems to feel the interpretation of the Maori version of the treaty says all New Zealanders, despite Maori scholars and such saying yeah nah, just Maori. And when it was put to him the English version of the treaty actually specifies just Maori, Seymour tried to dismiss the English version as not being considered in this conversation. If one treaty clarifies the other, for me at least it does have relevance. I get why Seymour is keen to dismiss it as it leaves an extremely large turd floating in the punch bowl he is attempting to sell New Zealanders on.

I feel if Seymour was sincere about wanting to cut back on red tape and cut down on costs of consent, he would be more actively working on cutting these things within the scope of what he does have power over, that being Government itself, and to a lesser extent local bodies who have no end of opportunities to cull the regulatory madness currently in place down to size. I do not count cutting Government jobs, in some cases to NZ's detriment as “cutting red tape”.

So in summary.
I feel we have two extremes here. A determined Te Pāti Māori party with supporters that want to set up full sovereignty and all that entails that certainly does have aspects of marxism in their plans. But at the end of the day, they have no real way forward of seriously advancing that plan.
On the other side we have Seymour and supporters that I have no doubt do include right wing groups wanting to pillage resources to enrich themselves putting up a slick package designed to make the “have nots” feel aggrieved and hard done by in order to advance their greed based aspirations.
As ever somewhere in the middle of two extremes lies balance. Which I feel is exactly what we have in place right now.
The bill is supposedly dead, long may that be the case.

P.S. (I know - groan) What I would like to see is NZ Elections be funded by tax payers. No more corporate “donations” or donations of any kind.
Like America, NZ has corruption baked into our political system from the get go. These donors always have an outcome in mind for their “investment”. To my mind this is not a democracy as optimal as it possibly could be.
The Government is put there by the people for the people. As soon as corporate money gets involved, the concept of Government actually working for the people gets shoved out the door.
So no more donations, no more lobbyists with offices in the parliament. I'm not saying corporate business should be out in the cold with no say. They should absolutely be consulted by Government on a huge raft of issues, and their information be reviewed. If deemed worthy, then implemented by competent and qualified Government staff – but no fucking “leverage donations” should ever be entertained.
I would also advocate for Government department heads/ministers to be paid highly enough that skilled and competent experts in their field can be hired. A small price to pay for qualified decisions to benefit all New Zealanders moving forward.

Must spread some rep around.

A very interesting and well articulated post first and foremost.

I am also inwardly jumping up and down with joy at the admission you voted ACT.

To clarify a few things - When it comes to the end-goal, I do not believe that most Maori want Communism, at all. Only a small number of Academics, Activists and Politicians want that.

The issue is that they use the following narrative:

The Colonizers took Utopia for you, did nothing for you, put you in prison, stole your lands - if we get rid of them, we can live in Utopia again!

And just like you identified with Debbie Ngarewa-Packer - when pushed for the real answer, she goes awfully evasive - because I think they know it wont fly.

On the cutting of red tape and utilizing resources - Reading your post, it sounds like you have an internal tension between these two areas. I mean this without it being negative - a Healthy tension between two noble principles is a good thing. We want the small business owner and private land owner to be able to go about their business without having to fill in 40 different forms, consult 10 different special interest groups. In the same breath, we want prudent and risk-aware usage of our natural resources. Sometimes that means Drill, Baby, Drill. Sometimes it means not at the moment, sometimes it means not at all.

In some instances, I think it is absolutely right that Iwi get consulted on issues - in other instances, I think it is unneccesary red tape.

On the School side and Maori Language - I feel I am somewhat qualified to talk here (as I have school age kiddos) - This is an area where I, like you, have an internal tension.

On the one hand, In terms of pure education, Maori language does not have a lot of further possibilities. Before anyone brings up the R-word, let me explain - with English, Maths and Science - that opens up a plethora of Career and study options Globally. Engineering can take you to the US or Dubai, English is the international language of commerce, Maths is universal etc. Given the limitations in terms of days at School, adding an additional subject must, necessarily, take away time from existing subjects...

However, on the Flip side - I do not believe that the school is formally teaching Maori in the same way that you would learn German or Latin (insert painful memories of trying to conjugate verbs - Die, Der, Das...) It is instead using Maori words alongside their english equivalents. In addition (and I think I have mentioned this before) - I have been to Wales many times and seen in my lifetime the resurgence of the Welsh language.

In addition, understanding a language gives a lot of detail and nuance to understanding a culture.

I will add a slight aside that the way they are substituting words does Irk me in that it creates almost a pidgin English type language, which I am not a huge fan of, where it doesnt make sense. By make sense I mean words or concepts that do not have an easy or direct english translation - e.g. Whanau or Marae.

If it were not for knowing the ulterior motives, I would perhaps be less critical on this point. The push for increased usage of Maori has, IMO been forced - which I think is a big part of the push back - the renaming of Government departments is and was a good example of this.

Where I perhaps disagree with you is where the balance is currently. For the sake of Argument, let us say you and I went to either the Waitangi Tribunal, the Beehive Civil Service or the University courses that teach the subjects that feed into these areas. I feel confident that I could take a firehose, turn it full blast, swing it around the respective rooms and never once get an ACT voter wet (you and I excluded of course).

I bet though I would get quite a few open Marxists and I would *definitely* get a large number of people who believed in Decolonization (even if they may not know what the end-goal actually is).

And whilst it is up to them to interpret what the Principles are, they will lean in favor of their world view, ignoring historical context, engaging in judicial activism, opting for a Living Document view, rather than an Originalist and Textualist approach.

Therefore a Bill to limit their ability to nudge the Country in that direction is needed.

As I said in one of my Posts - my umbrage with the wording of the Bill is the first Principle: I dont want the Government to have full power to do anything. I want Governmental power to be constrained as tightly as possible.

[sugilite:Me]

I agree with most of your post and what I disagree with is so small I see no value in nit picking.
Don't worry TDL, normal service will resume over on the trump thread

Dont get too excited about my ACT vote though, I saw the left were dead and the nats were in like flin, so I looked at the policies on the right and felt Seymor was a semi positive agent for change that "may" ultimately benefit all nz'ers. At the end of the day it was still an unpalatable dead rat that needed swallowing

[TheDemonLord]

I agree with most of your post and what I disagree with is so small I see no value in nit picking.
Don't worry TDL, normal service will resume over on the trump thread

Dont get too excited about my ACT vote though, I saw the left were dead and the nats were in like flin, so I looked at the policies on the right and felt Seymor was a semi positive agent for change that "may" ultimately benefit all nz'ers.

Be still my beating heart....

[SaferRides]

Some background reading: https://thelawassociation.nz/the-pri...t-all-started/

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

I will add a slight aside that the way they are substituting words does Irk me in that it creates almost a pidgin English type language, which I am not a huge fan of, where it doesnt make sense.

I believe Te Reo originally used around 7000 words. Contemporary English uses 150-200,000, excluding technical and archaic words.

So, as English stole words from every other culture it traded with Maori stole English words. Lots of them. It had to in order to communicate effectively with anyone they wanted to trade with.

I don't blame them, but it does make their indignant insistence in inserting Te Reo, transliterations and all into every fucking crevice they can pound it into somewhat tiring.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I believe Te Reo originally used around 7000 words. Contemporary English uses 150-200,000, excluding technical and archaic words.

So, as English stole words from every other culture it traded with Maori stole English words. Lots of them. It had to in order to communicate effectively with anyone they wanted to trade with.

I don't blame them, but it does make their indignant insistence in inserting Te Reo, transliterations and all into every fucking crevice they can pound it into somewhat tiring.

I too enjoy pounding things into crevices.

[TheDemonLord]

So - an interesting commentary from ACT: In one of their newsletters, they mentioned that the Bill has achieved one of its goals - which is to get the people who oppose this to say outloud that they have more rights because they are Maori.

And I for one can appreciate a well-played Troll, to get your opponent to say the quiet part aloud.

[Berries]

Was thinking of going to the cricket next week but the on screen schedule only had the Maori name so I couldn't tell where it was.

Kikiroa?

[sugilite:Me]

Seymour's recruitment drive going quite nicely!

[sugilite:Me]

An interesting perspective.......

[Katman]

Maori were not a unified race back when the treaty was signed. The Musket Wars that occupied the preceding two decades showed that.

The signing of the treaty gave Maori the opportunity to settle into a sense of stability and the Maori that fought on the side of the British during the New Zealand Wars that followed are proof of that.

The idea that the Maori Party represents a unified Maoridom is ludicrous.

What surprises me is that they appear to get away with outright displays of sedition while occupying positions in a despised pakeha government.

[TheDemonLord]

Maori were not a unified race back when the treaty was signed. The Musket Wars that occupied the preceding two decades showed that.

The signing of the treaty gave Maori the opportunity to settle into a sense of stability and the Maori that fought on the side of the British during the New Zealand Wars that followed are proof of that.

The idea that the Maori Party represents a unified Maoridom is ludicrous.

What surprises me is that they appear to get away with outright displays of sedition while occupying positions in a despised pakeha government.

Interesting points on the unified Maori front - I dont entirely agree with them per se, but I do find it interesting how quickly the NZ Political debate talks about Maori, forgetting that there are still deep divisions.

For example - the Local Marae that I help out at (Which may surprise you) - One of their Elders told me a story of Utu between his tribe and Waikato Tribes. He refuses to break bread with certain Waikato groups (I cant remember the names).

Me, personally, when I heard the story - fascinating story (I enjoy history) and that Man is a walking history book and regularly does mini-archeological digs in the region - but despite my investiment in the story - the bit that struck me was the old axiom:

No man shall be made to answer for the Crimes of his Father.

It seemed to me, that to him, the Tribe lived on and the crimes of the Tribe have not been answered for. It is a very different world view.

The sedition part is hilarious to me - because if you read up on their philosophies - you will find they are outright seditious, and yet we give them a free pass.

Then when they do what they say they are going to do - people get up in arms - I find that Hilarious. Te Pati Maori are, fundamentally, a revolutionary political force, with Marxist leanings whose sole purpose is to decolonize NZ - e.g. remove every facet and element of British Democracy from NZ.

Their very existence is seditious.

Onto the Treaty though - and this article, I feel is the most 'honest' with the opposition:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/trea...HXVZIQP3R4LOI/

In the first paragraph:

The Treaty Principles Bill poses major risk to public health and equity, according to four academics, Carwyn Jones, Maria Bargh, Michael Baker and Rhys Jones.

I have highlighted the Key word here:

Equity.

NOT Equality.

What do they mean when they talk about Equity?

(Note - this is the cue for those un-interested, here comes my favourite topics - Marxism!)

I will first describe the difference between the two concepts in my own words:

Equality would be having a dole payment the same for everyone - For the sake of argument lets say $1,000 a week.

Equity would be saying well person A lives in Auckland and to achieve the same lifestyle as person B in woodville, they will need $1,500 a week. Person C also lives in woodville but has a medical condition that means they can't Drive, so they need $2,000 to taxi everywhere.

Or at least - that is the nice and fluffy version of Equity that is promoted by dishonest actors would say (cue the picture of the Baseball game where people are trying to watch it for free over a fence and difference heights)

The actual version of Equity goes more like this: Group A has a different outcome than Group B on *Issue* (Education, Health, Criminality, longevity etc. etc.) - therefore discrimination.

And to fix this supposed discrimination, we need Legislation, Affrimative action (Discrimination to beat Discrimination), Quotas, DIE policies etc. and ultimately (when you unravel the ball of yarn far enough) - A Communist revolution to smash the Western Colonial Capitalist Patriarchy!

Let us put some purely hypotheticals into practice:

Maori have different health outcomes than Pakeha, therefore we need a seperate Maori health agency to fix this. Sound familiar? Purely Hypothetical of course.

And there is the *real* issue that this bill sought to expose (and ultimately fix).

Judicial Activists have sought to use the Treaty to further their own agendas, re-interpreting Maori phrases within the Treaty as so as to require things like Co-Governance, all whilst using it as a Trojan Horse for a De-colonist agenda (which as per previous postings - is a Marxist concept).

Once you strip away the insults of the opposition to the bill: Racist! I dont like Seymour etc. etc.

You get a few moments of clarity as to what the real reason for the opposition is: The Bill was limit their ability to abuse the Treaty to promote Marxist concepts like Equity. This is what the Academics are mad about, this is what the likes of Te Pati Maori are mad at. Who in turn rile up their base with claims like Racism etc.

This was the real reason for the Bill - to get certain people to admit they have been using the Treaty to push their agenda - an Agenda that most Kiwis are not on board with.

Whether or not is passes in this form - The cat is out of the bag, whilst some of us were well aware of this ages ago, the wider public has seen the statements and behavior of the opposition and are starting to put 2 and 2 together.

In this sense, even if the Bill does not pass - it has been a success. Getting Te Pati Maori to admit they want to do away with the Government and getting Academics to admit they are abusing the treaty to push Equity has been a win.