Underestimating David Seymour is a mistake.
Anyone who followed David Seymour’s patient championing of assisted dying will have a sneaking suspicion that history may well repeat itself in the Treaty principles debate. As Winston Peters might put it, this is not his first rodeo.
It took five years after Seymour lodged his bill in Parliament’s biscuit tin in 2015 for the End of Life Choice Act to be ratified in a referendum at 2020’s general election and he was fighting very powerful opponents all the way — including the Catholic Church and its proxies, as well as influential doctors’ unions.
He entered the arena as the underdog, with even some of those pushing for a law-change initially seeing him as a poor representative to lead the campaign. Little by little, however, his critics were obliged to concede his persistent advocacy was highly effective.
Despite that success, few commentators rate his chances of progressing a Treaty Principles Bill beyond a first reading and its associated select committee hearing, let alone securing a referendum to ultimately ratify or reject a Treaty Principles Act. The consensus seems to be that angry protests will frighten Christopher Luxon into making sure Seymour’s proposed bill is summarily shot down after the select committee process.
And it’s easy to see why opponents of a referendum believe Seymour’s bill will never get near a ballot box.
Despite a Curia poll in October showing 45 per cent support for holding a referendum, there has been precious little — if any — commentary in favour of one. In fact, a lot of it has been hysterically opposed and some little short of apocalyptic, including Labour MP Willie Jackson’s warning in early November of “war”.
“I’m just giving a warning. I work amongst our people, I’m amongst people who will go to war for this — war against Seymour and his mates. I’m saying to you what Māori have been saying to me.”
Former Prime Ministers have denounced it. Jim Bolger called it “bloody stupid”, “a total sideshow”, and “a no-go”, while Helen Clark said a referendum should not even be contemplated, and that it would be “incredibly divisive”.
Anthropologist Dame Anne Salmond has described Seymour’s proposal to redefine the Treaty principles and put them to a vote as “disrespectful” and “arrogant”, as well as “unjust and unwise, and should not be entertained by any responsible government”.
It has also been said that the average voter is not capable of understanding the subtleties of constitutional law, and that prejudice and racism would skew the vote.
Predictably, the media has been damning of the proposal and quick to dismiss its chances.
Stuff’s chief political correspondent, Tova O’Brien, has referred to the “lunacy” of a referendum.
Stuff’s political editor, Luke Malpass, told the podcast Newsable in late November: “We will almost certainly not see a Treaty referendum.”
Newstalk ZB’s political editor, Jason Walls, similarly asserted on Newshub Nation that the bill would be killed after the first reading and the select committee process.
It’s hard not to think they are seriously underestimating Seymour’s tactical skills and persistence. It has gone mostly unnoticed that he told the NZ Herald’s Audrey Young in November that he wants a long period for select committee consultation, possibly as much as nine months.
That is the mark of a canny and confident democrat, who believes that, given time, he will be able to persuade a majority of voters to his way of thinking.
Seymour’s pitch is simple yet powerful: New Zealand needs a discussion about Treaty principles and people should have a say on them alongside the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal and public servants. And rather than a “partnership between races”, his principles aim to give all people “equal rights and duties”.
As he told RNZ, Act thinks the principles “should be codified in legislation and New Zealanders should be allowed to vote on them, rather than allowing the courts to surreptitiously change our constitution… Act would promote the Treaty as it was actually signed, not the divisive version invented by judges and academics.”
It should be noted that the binding referendum to ratify the End of Life Choice Act was held at the insistence of Winston Peters and NZ First. It turned out to be an inspired political move. Seymour no doubt learned from his experience of that contentious bill that if a politician wants to lock in change, a law passed after extensive debate both in Parliament and in public and then offered to voters to confirm or reject is an unimpeachable template for determining the will of the people.
Seymour wants the discussion to be as wide-ranging as possible. Consequently, when King Tūheitia declared a national hui to be held at Turangawaewae on January 20 to discuss the bill and the government’s Māori policy agenda, he welcomed it.
Seymour (like Peters) believes in the decency and intelligence of the ordinary voter. He doesn’t see many as unrepentant bigots, racists and deplorables — as some politicians and journalists seem to — but rather as largely rational people who will respond to intelligent arguments, including around issues of fairness, equal suffrage and the nation’s constitutional path.
It is an approach that paid off handsomely in 2020 when a significant majority of voters were clearly convinced by his appeals for compassion towards those suffering intolerably at the end of their lives and voted accordingly in the referendum.
It is ironic that some of his most prominent opponents are enthusiastically — albeit unwittingly — helping his cause. After all, is there any better way to ensure voters will end up demanding a referendum than insisting they can’t have one — particularly when they are told they are too dim to understand a constitutional question?
Voters were certainly considered smart and responsible enough in 1993 to decide in a binding referendum held alongside that year’s general election whether MMP should be adopted as the nation’s voting system.
Meanwhile, Te Pāti Māori is doing excellent work on Seymour’s behalf. Notably, its MPs organised protests during morning rush-hour within the first fortnight of the formation of the Luxon-led government to protest against its policies towards Māori. The party’s secretary bizarrely predicted the protests would likely cause “millions of dollars in lost productivity” as if that would help it win favour with the public.
The media appears to have been very impressed by Te Pāti Māori’s show of power after thousands of protesters turned out to support it, and have been very happy to present the party as representing the voice of Māori. However, as researcher Lindsay Mitchell observed in a column in December, Te Pāti Māori gained support from no more than one in six enrolled Māori voters. All up, it won just 3.08 per cent of the party vote.
However, it is the activist group Te Waka Hourua who have shown themselves to be Seymour’s most devoted allies. Vandalising a display of the Treaty of Waitangi in English showcased in one of the nation’s most cherished cultural institutions, Te Papa, is a stupendous own goal. When English is New Zealand’s only common language, it defies belief that any protest group would think it was a good idea to deface the version written in the language everyone speaks.
As one social media commenter put it: “If elite Māori say the English version has no standing, then the Treaty is no longer intelligible or relevant to at least 87 per cent of New Zealanders.”
Te Waka Hourua’s claim that Māori never ceded sovereignty to the Crown is as poorly thought through as their vandalism. If that were true, there would be no basis for Treaty settlements, which rest on the acknowledgment Māori surrendered sovereignty in return for successive governments protecting their property rights. As political commentator Grant Duncan put it: “Any community on these islands that rejects the Crown’s assumption of its sovereignty today weakens any claim they may make for compensation from the Crown in future. Indeed, they may be forgetting that the Waitangi Tribunal was a creature of a Parliament that had sworn loyalty to the monarch.”
Te Waka Hourua’s assault on the museum exhibit was effectively an attempt to insist there should be no debate, unless it is held on terms that suit them. Unfortunately for them, less than six weeks into the coalition’s term a fiery debate is already well under way. And even a quick look at social media shows all aspects of the Treaty / Te Tiriti are up for robust discussion.
It took five years after Seymour lodged his bill in Parliament’s biscuit tin in 2015 for the End of Life Choice Act to be ratified in a referendum at 2020’s general election and he was fighting very powerful opponents all the way — including the Catholic Church and its proxies, as well as influential doctors’ unions.
He entered the arena as the underdog, with even some of those pushing for a law-change initially seeing him as a poor representative to lead the campaign. Little by little, however, his critics were obliged to concede his persistent advocacy was highly effective.
Despite that success, few commentators rate his chances of progressing a Treaty Principles Bill beyond a first reading and its associated select committee hearing, let alone securing a referendum to ultimately ratify or reject a Treaty Principles Act. The consensus seems to be that angry protests will frighten Christopher Luxon into making sure Seymour’s proposed bill is summarily shot down after the select committee process.
And it’s easy to see why opponents of a referendum believe Seymour’s bill will never get near a ballot box.
Despite a Curia poll in October showing 45 per cent support for holding a referendum, there has been precious little — if any — commentary in favour of one. In fact, a lot of it has been hysterically opposed and some little short of apocalyptic, including Labour MP Willie Jackson’s warning in early November of “war”.
“I’m just giving a warning. I work amongst our people, I’m amongst people who will go to war for this — war against Seymour and his mates. I’m saying to you what Māori have been saying to me.”
Former Prime Ministers have denounced it. Jim Bolger called it “bloody stupid”, “a total sideshow”, and “a no-go”, while Helen Clark said a referendum should not even be contemplated, and that it would be “incredibly divisive”.
Anthropologist Dame Anne Salmond has described Seymour’s proposal to redefine the Treaty principles and put them to a vote as “disrespectful” and “arrogant”, as well as “unjust and unwise, and should not be entertained by any responsible government”.
It has also been said that the average voter is not capable of understanding the subtleties of constitutional law, and that prejudice and racism would skew the vote.
Predictably, the media has been damning of the proposal and quick to dismiss its chances.
Stuff’s chief political correspondent, Tova O’Brien, has referred to the “lunacy” of a referendum.
Stuff’s political editor, Luke Malpass, told the podcast Newsable in late November: “We will almost certainly not see a Treaty referendum.”
Newstalk ZB’s political editor, Jason Walls, similarly asserted on Newshub Nation that the bill would be killed after the first reading and the select committee process.
It’s hard not to think they are seriously underestimating Seymour’s tactical skills and persistence. It has gone mostly unnoticed that he told the NZ Herald’s Audrey Young in November that he wants a long period for select committee consultation, possibly as much as nine months.
That is the mark of a canny and confident democrat, who believes that, given time, he will be able to persuade a majority of voters to his way of thinking.
Seymour’s pitch is simple yet powerful: New Zealand needs a discussion about Treaty principles and people should have a say on them alongside the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal and public servants. And rather than a “partnership between races”, his principles aim to give all people “equal rights and duties”.
As he told RNZ, Act thinks the principles “should be codified in legislation and New Zealanders should be allowed to vote on them, rather than allowing the courts to surreptitiously change our constitution… Act would promote the Treaty as it was actually signed, not the divisive version invented by judges and academics.”
It should be noted that the binding referendum to ratify the End of Life Choice Act was held at the insistence of Winston Peters and NZ First. It turned out to be an inspired political move. Seymour no doubt learned from his experience of that contentious bill that if a politician wants to lock in change, a law passed after extensive debate both in Parliament and in public and then offered to voters to confirm or reject is an unimpeachable template for determining the will of the people.
Seymour wants the discussion to be as wide-ranging as possible. Consequently, when King Tūheitia declared a national hui to be held at Turangawaewae on January 20 to discuss the bill and the government’s Māori policy agenda, he welcomed it.
Seymour (like Peters) believes in the decency and intelligence of the ordinary voter. He doesn’t see many as unrepentant bigots, racists and deplorables — as some politicians and journalists seem to — but rather as largely rational people who will respond to intelligent arguments, including around issues of fairness, equal suffrage and the nation’s constitutional path.
It is an approach that paid off handsomely in 2020 when a significant majority of voters were clearly convinced by his appeals for compassion towards those suffering intolerably at the end of their lives and voted accordingly in the referendum.
It is ironic that some of his most prominent opponents are enthusiastically — albeit unwittingly — helping his cause. After all, is there any better way to ensure voters will end up demanding a referendum than insisting they can’t have one — particularly when they are told they are too dim to understand a constitutional question?
Voters were certainly considered smart and responsible enough in 1993 to decide in a binding referendum held alongside that year’s general election whether MMP should be adopted as the nation’s voting system.
Meanwhile, Te Pāti Māori is doing excellent work on Seymour’s behalf. Notably, its MPs organised protests during morning rush-hour within the first fortnight of the formation of the Luxon-led government to protest against its policies towards Māori. The party’s secretary bizarrely predicted the protests would likely cause “millions of dollars in lost productivity” as if that would help it win favour with the public.
The media appears to have been very impressed by Te Pāti Māori’s show of power after thousands of protesters turned out to support it, and have been very happy to present the party as representing the voice of Māori. However, as researcher Lindsay Mitchell observed in a column in December, Te Pāti Māori gained support from no more than one in six enrolled Māori voters. All up, it won just 3.08 per cent of the party vote.
However, it is the activist group Te Waka Hourua who have shown themselves to be Seymour’s most devoted allies. Vandalising a display of the Treaty of Waitangi in English showcased in one of the nation’s most cherished cultural institutions, Te Papa, is a stupendous own goal. When English is New Zealand’s only common language, it defies belief that any protest group would think it was a good idea to deface the version written in the language everyone speaks.
As one social media commenter put it: “If elite Māori say the English version has no standing, then the Treaty is no longer intelligible or relevant to at least 87 per cent of New Zealanders.”
Te Waka Hourua’s claim that Māori never ceded sovereignty to the Crown is as poorly thought through as their vandalism. If that were true, there would be no basis for Treaty settlements, which rest on the acknowledgment Māori surrendered sovereignty in return for successive governments protecting their property rights. As political commentator Grant Duncan put it: “Any community on these islands that rejects the Crown’s assumption of its sovereignty today weakens any claim they may make for compensation from the Crown in future. Indeed, they may be forgetting that the Waitangi Tribunal was a creature of a Parliament that had sworn loyalty to the monarch.”
Te Waka Hourua’s assault on the museum exhibit was effectively an attempt to insist there should be no debate, unless it is held on terms that suit them. Unfortunately for them, less than six weeks into the coalition’s term a fiery debate is already well under way. And even a quick look at social media shows all aspects of the Treaty / Te Tiriti are up for robust discussion.
Graham Adams is a freelance editor, journalist
and columnist. He lives on Auckland’s North Shore.
22 comments:
Don't love what Seymour did to bring in euthanasia. 2000 years of Western Christian civilisation that valued human life as sacred obliterated. He is similarly wrong on abortion.
However I agree with his stance on the Treaty of Waitangi and that Parliament has the right to define what the treaty means.
It will be very interesting if future polls show more than 50% want a referendum.
What will Luxon and Peters do then? Veto it at the Select Committee process and tell the public they're effectively not capable of making a decision OR support it and endure the wailing, crying and predictable threats from the Left, backed up by our MSM.
If it's the first one then they can expect their share of the vote at the next election to drop. A scary prospect, especially for NZ First.
If Seymour's smart he should ensure actions are taken which weaken the state media outlets and reduce their influence before he goes for it.
In that other referendum David Seymour had the support of the Left/Liberal establishment from the Labour Government,Green Party and media. This time he doesn't so there will be no referendum.
Seymour was right about euthanasia and abortion. The ideologues fought him but ultimately NZ spoke and agreed that it was a matter of personal choice.
Same with the Treaty - the ideologues want to force their agenda on everyone else. Seymour is right about public debate. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. When the public hears the Maori activists' arguments they will realise it's a con. Then NZ will affirm that everyone is equal - end of story.
...Unless there is a citizens' referendum requested. 350.000 signatures needed - the people themselves may ask for this. No government can refuse.
People are starting to realize that the stark choice is a referendum to preserve democracy ( at least for some time yet)... or the He Puapua agenda will march steadily forward unopposed.
The debate is about whether any persons ancestry has primacy over everyone else's rights as an individual living in New Zealand, before we sink into an apartheid oriented backwater or third / fourth world nation .
To include political party and leaders names is playing the man not the ball.
Debate the issue as if you were talking sanely to a friend, colleague or neighbour, NOT as a radical ideologist
Seymour was wrong about euthanasia and abortion. Morals are not just about personal choice.
I asked years ago where are the principles and partnership in the Treaty of Waitangi? Just as well I did not hold my breath! Neither exist. They are pure fantasy! To have a Partnership, you must have two or more people. The answer is "up in the clouds", i.e. aotearoa.
Kevan
Don't need a referendum, the coalition need only to repeal The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and disolve the Waitangi Tribunal. From there sysematically repeal all sources of racist legislation. They have the numbers.There is no better time to take advantage of their mandate.
The rowing parable would seem to have application to teachers and Ministry of Education staff
I'm inclined to agree with your Graham. The more this issue is brought out into the light and allowed to percolate, the more those activists against it will 'cook their own goose.' Many NZrs have been too complacent and accommodating in the past, but with a recent taste of the divisive He Puapua agenda, I believe, as with the recent Australian "The Voice" vote, the majority will see what is essential to maintain our nationhood - lest we want to become a banana republic, answerable to a small unelected cohort that the majority have no power to rein in. The antics of the activists will be all the convincing that many will need.
I say, bring it on - otherwise it will just continue to fester and be our ultimate ruination.
Peter, The Voice is interesting. There was a lot of goodwill towards it in the beginning but a majority in favour turned heavily against it on the day.
One thing that no doubt rankled was politicians and the media telling voters they were racist if they voted "no". I can't think of a better way to annoy people you're trying to woo.
I have noticed some are insisting everyone who isn't Maori are "guests" here. That's very unwise.
Heather du Plessis-Allan from Newstalk ZB understands the power of Seymour's position. A month or more ago, she said:
“David Seymour’s argument against critics is the simplest. He accuses them of protesting against equal rights for all. For his opponents to counter that, they would have to go where they haven’t yet and argue that Māori deserve more rights. It’s not an argument that will land well with many middle-of-the-road voters.”
Yes, Graham, perhaps on reflection my mentioning The Voice wasn't the best example, but the more this current matter is discussed and examined, the more untenable and polarising (to the majority) the position of those opposed (and likely aggressively so) will become. After all, it's extremely hard to argue persuasively (and win over a majority) against a proposition which is, prima facie, eminently fair and sensible.
And that discussion and examination will also likely bring into focus the veracity of the claim that tangata Maori are the tangata wenua, which in more recent years has largely gone unchallenged and which is a central tenet to the opposing activists position.
Graham, great piece, and thanks for your cameo appearance and replying to Peter's comment. All I can say is " Go David Seymour " . :)
The people are sick of the last 6 years of racist agendas . Let's make this a proud country again where we are all equal.
I support Terry Morrissey comment above.
Mr Palmer (just another politician responsible for the apartheid situation we are in) said as he bolted for the door, "It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other statutes which give explicit recognition to the Treaty are not entrenched. They can be swept away by a simple majority in Parliament".
I hope that at some point is this process the text of the Treaty will come out into public view. I think many people will be amazed and frightened by how the words have been twisted by various members of the previous govt, to further their aim of taking NZ back a couple of hundred years to tribal rule.
Graham, good to see you here. Great article.
You’re right about The Voice. When the argument is loaded with guilt and condemnation then it’s easier to turn away from it. The merits of the case are overshadowed by the coercive and manipulative way it is presented.
Same with the Treaty activists here. The recent Maorification of NZ has turned off a lot of Kiwis - including non-white, non-Maori Kiwis who are technically pakeha and don’t like being called racist for not supporting the activists’ misinterpretation of the Treaty.
The weaponisation of te reo by forcing it on the public was a big mistake because now a lot of people are resentful. That’s no way to win people over. Rather it’s a similar attitude that lost The Voice.
I disagree, the debate has not taken off. The three parties on the left competing for Maori support, yell racist, and threaten violence. That is not a debate.
The debate will come, but it will be short and meaningless, what is there to debate. One people, same rules and responsibilities.
It is true that the debate is one-sided in the MSM — nearly all commentators are condemning Seymour's proposal.
But on social media there's a lot of commentary over Trick or Treaty? (Mihi Forbes doco); the defacing of Te Papa; judges inserting tikanga into law etc.
Every article / broadcast against Seymour's referendum draws a large number of comments in support as well as analysis of the issues at play.
People tend to discount the power of social media and the independent media (like this site) to influence the public but that's a mistake.
Agree, get rid of the Tribunal and all associated legislation. ‘ Maori’ can have their ‘culture’ and swing poi and sing their songs but no more glorification of their brutal heritage and tribal constructs. ( Imho that includes no celebration with the haka a horrific statement of pending violent death. By all means it can be retained and acknowledged for its historical role, but nothing else).
The Treaty settlements were supposed to be full and final. But the beneficiaries of numerous such settlements now claim they were far from that and claim further payment.
Likewise beneficiaries of these settlements now seem to have a never ending book, the turning of every page of which reveals vast new rights and benefits entitled to them.
They don't seem to realise , every benefit to them comes from someone else's pocket. And they don't seem to realise there are an awful lot more poor people whose ancestors didn't sign the Treaty than ancestors of those who did.
We don't need Willie Jackson , and John Tamihere's threats of violence. We are just to used to such violence from their community . We see it every day in the newspapers and the courts.
They are offended by the average Kiwi wanting peoples rights under the Treaty to be resolved for once and for all. Well the average Kiwi's are offended by their threats of violence.
Such threats of violence themselves are sufficient to justify a referendum is held.
It's true that publicity and debate will likely be worthwhile to throw light on this matter. However, I think it's a mistake to hold a referendum on what the 'principles' of Te Tiriti are. Better to have an enquiry through a royal commission or similar. Either there were/are some principles underlying Te Tiriti or not; that's not a matter for democratic vote any more than would be whether it rained last week in Northland. I doubt that there is any good evidence for these 'principles' that seem to have been recently invented and whose authors have made clear will change according to perceived need by those who would benefit. Any objective, non-partisan scrutiny of the evidence would find against them.
A referendum however would be worthwhile on more fundamental matters such as what role a treaty designed for vastly different circumstances should play in modern law and society. In order for its outcome to be accepted and influential, that kind of referendum should balance the scales by giving Maori voters additional votes for a 50% overall say. The outcome would still likely reduce the modern role of Te Tiriti and the ridiculous mental gymnastics required to treat it as still relevant.
However, perhaps Seymour's plan is astute, pursuing easier and less threatening questions that will anyway end up with consideration of the place and role of Te Tiriti in modern New Zealand.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.