As politicians debated the Bill for the first time, labels "liar" and "disgrace" were hurled at the ACT Party.
THREE KEY FACTS
While the hīkoi is chiefly a protest against Act’s Treaty Principles Bill, protesters say they are also opposed to other Government policies that undermine the rights of Māori.
The four-page Treaty Principles Bill has been introduced and will be debated in Parliament next week.
Enter our politicians who managed to insert pornography, liars, losers, the KKK, and eventhe long-forgotten Mainzeal scandal into a supposedly civilised family chat about our constitutional arrangements.
Yes, New Zealand, we officially have another defecation situation.
Not quite the type of “input” David Seymour envisioned when he kicked off this whole debate, I’m sure. The only constitution required to partake, it seems, is a strong one.
But behind all the mud-slinging and nonsense, some interesting questions have arisen.
Could Christopher Luxon have shut this vote down on first reading? Former Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson said if it was Sir John Key in charge, he would have stared Seymour down, called his bluff and voted against the bill last Thursday. When Seymour would have inevitably protested against such a breach of the coalition agreement, Finlayson reckoned Key would have threatened to run against Seymour in Epsom – thereby threatening Act’s political existence. There’s a lot to unpack there but my feeling is Luxon has more to prove maintaining a stable coalition than he does a popular image at this stage in his prime ministerial career. Once the deal was signed, he had to stick to his word, least Winston and co begin questioning what else could come unstuck at the threat of a protest or run of bad press.
This hīkoi has been a masterclass in political branding and campaigning from Te Pāti Māori, who’ve left Labour in the dust leading the charge both on the street and in the House. But what exactly is it that they want? The bill will be voted down but Rawiri Waititi has repeatedly said that’s not enough. He wants the creation of a separate Māori Parliament. On the party’s website, it references the Northern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh devolved systems as examples of how this could work in practice. Let’s take the Scots as an example. Holyrood has its own legal system, is responsible for education, taxation, justice, health, environment, primary industries and some (but not all) welfare and transport. Is this also what the hīkoi supporters want? If so, how would it work? Who would fund it? How do you establish a parliament over a specific set of people rather than a geographical area? And what happens to jurisdiction of the 75% of Māori who don’t support Te Pāti Māori? More Māori voted for National alone (22%) than Te Pāti Māori (16%) at the last election. How would their ancestry factor into the formation of a new parliament they themselves may not support?
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi (centre) at the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti march in Rotorua. Photo / Ben Fraser
What outcomes do Māori want? It’s clear that some Māori don’t like right-leaning governments and vote accordingly. But that’s not to say they necessarily do well out of left-leaning ones. While Dame Jacinda Ardern was big on phrases like “partnership” and “partners”, did any major negative social indicator for Māori improve markedly under her reign? Is the debate we’re having about outcomes, as clearly Luxon thinks it should be, or about the relationship and the journey getting there? In Te Ao Māori, the later is vital. Is this where the Government is getting it wrong? Speaking a different language and failing to properly consult?
Finally, if Te Pāti Māori manages to galvanise the Māori electorate and hold or even clean-sweep the Māori seats in 2026, what extra power would it give them unless they’re at least willing to negotiate with National? Waititi said this week that Te Pāti Māori should be kingmaker and called on protesters to join the Māori roll and make it happen. But, as Winston will tell you, you need two to tango. Bargaining power requires bargaining. How can he bargain with a coalition he’s previously declared white supremacists guilty of cultural genocide? Waititi’s supporters deserve detail on how he will achieve the hopes and aspirations for underprivileged Māori he is clearly so passionate about.
And equally, while Seymour says race shouldn’t be the contributing factor in deciding treatment in health or funding in education, it’s undeniable Māori are behind in most social statistics available. It’s also undeniable that past injustices have contributed to some of that imbalance. We have Treaty settlements, Whānau Ora, kura kaupapa and entire arms of government devoted to correcting these injustices but they’re clearly not working as well as they could. It’s up to Seymour, as a politician, to tell us how to fix them.
Maybe once that’s done and dusted, we can go to the bathroom in peace again.
Sign up to the Premium Opinion newsletter for a wrap of the week’s best commentary and analysis, compiled by our Opinion Editor and delivered straight to your inbox every Wednesday.
