Verbal brawl breaks out over Act’s Treaty referendum, Māori voting and Chlöe Swarbrick’s pro-Palestinian comments

Act deputy leader Brooke Van Velden.

Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air

A political panel ended up in a verbal stand-off between MP Brooke Van Velden, Herald columnist Shane Te Pou and libertarian liquidator Damien Grant over Act’s Treaty referendum, Māori strategic voting and Chlöe Swarbrick’s pro-Palestinian chant.

On The Working Group podcast last night, the trio discussed the major political issues of the week.

Host Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury asked Van Velden: “Chris Luxon has said no to your race-baiting Treaty referendum that will spark civil unrest. How important is it for Act to spark civil unrest?

Van Velden argued it was in fact Labour MP Willie Jackson who was fanning the issue with inflammatory statements about civil war.

“Nobody wants civil unrest, what we want is adult conversations. It’s possible to have robust discussion and public conversations,” she said.

“We’re not taking away people’s rights and we are also not doing what Willie Jackson says, that we will go to civil war.

“This is the type of rhetoric we should be opposed to.”

Bradbury pointed out it was unjust that the majority — Pākehā — tell a minority — Māori — that they don’t have rights or entitlements that were stipulated in the Treaty of Waitangi.

Te Pou agreed, saying Act’s Treaty stand was out of step with what right-minded Kiwis believed.

The panel also discussed Te Pāti Māori’s amazing six-seat electorate victory.

“Māori voters in the Māori electorates are the most strategic voters in New Zealand, they overwhelmingly voted Māori Party as the electorate vote and Labour for the party vote and generated the MMP overhang,” Bradbury said.

“When Matt McCarten helped create the Māori Party, he argued they should use the MMP overhang in the Māori electorates — isn’t now the time for a Ratana 2 alliance between Labour and the Māori Party to use the Māori electorates strategically and forge an unbreakable means to win 2026?

Grant scoffed at the insinuation and a heated argument about the difference between Māori using MMP strategically and Act using it strategically — claiming it as “gerrymandering”.

“You are so obsessed with brown people,” he screamed.

The debate then spilled over into Chlöe Swarbrick.

Grant and Van Velden argued Swarbrick’s use of the pro-Palestinian chant was offensive to Israelis.

Bradbury asked Van Velden: “Israel has killed more civilians in one month than Russia has killed in nearly two years of war with Ukraine — where does Act get off claiming Chlöe is an antisemitism in the shadow of such an enormous mountain of dead civilians?

Van Velden said Swarbrick should “taiho” and be responsible.