Despite his claim of Maori ancestry, he is defending his Treaty Principles Bill.

His comments came as a hikoi opposing the bill reached Parliament, backed by passionate speeches and strong objections from Maori leaders.

Leaders voice Hapu concerns

Te Runanga o Ngati Rehia issued a statement condemning Seymour's proposed legislation, calling it a threat to mana Maori motuhake (Maori self-determination).

"Ngati Rehia oppose everything this bill stands for" the runanga said, urging Seymour to withdraw the bill which they say contradicts the principles his ancestors fought for.

They also expressed fears the bill would harm Maori communities.

"He has disregarded our voice and continued with this divisive kaupapa" their statement read.

Seymour stands firm on individual freedoms

Seymour responded by emphasising his belief in individual freedom over collective identity, stating he does not feel obligated to follow the perspectives of his hapu.

"If the proposition is that being Maori means I have to bow down and follow leadership, then that's not a very attractive proposition" Seymour told Local Democracy Reporting.

"The idea that I have to think the same as every ancestor I have."

He also dismissed the hikoi's objections as lacking coherence, while acknowledging the intensity of Maori-related discussions at his public meetings.

Highly contentious remarks at ACT meeting

NZ Herald reports that at an Act Party meeting in New Plymouth on Wednesday, Seymour's audience voiced sharp criticisms of Maori issues, reflecting the polarising nature of the debate.

One attendee compared Maori to seagulls, suggesting continued government support led to dependency.

Another claimed the Treaty had been reinterpreted over time to serve a Maori elite, while another dismissed pre-colonial Maori society as violent.

Source

• NZ Herald

At the last election, it was the only party to propose a referendum on this subject, and 91.6 percent of the electorate did not support them.

It had no democratic mandate to enact its ideas about the Treaty.

In the coalition negotiations that followed the election, both Act and NZ First (with only 6 percent of the vote) gained support for specific policies - from gun laws, far right economic policies, a Fast-track bill and smoking laws to a referendum on Te Tiriti - that won very little support from voters. In some cases, these policies weren't even put to the electorate.

This makes a mockery of the democratic process.

As the party that won the majority of votes in 2023, National must take responsibility for this breach of democratic norms.

To gain power, its leaders were willing to trade away positions on matters of national importance supported by centrist majorities in favour of policies and initiatives supported by fringe minorities.

As Sir Geoffrey Palmer has noted, "New Zealand is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety. The Luxon government is driving a number of controversial issues rapidly through Parliament. Some of these policies are unfit for purpose, legally suspect, contrary to the public interest and inappropriate."

The previous Labour government must take some of the blame for this state of affairs.

Emboldened by an absolute majority, it also tried to enact controversial policies on Te Tiriti and other matters that lacked a democratic mandate.

At the same time, by rushing through a raft of ill-considered legislation under urgency, and trying to avoid proper scrutiny as they enact their backdoor deals, the National-led coalition Government is putting New Zealand's democracy at risk.

In his article, Sir Geoffrey examined Act's proposal for a referendum on the Treaty as a case in point. Again, his comments are apposite:

"New Zealand is likely to be internationally embarrassed if these policies prevail. The Act policy on this matter is polarising and dangerous to civil order.

"Sir John Key was right to speak out against it.

"The Treaty is binding on the New Zealand Government.

"It is binding because New Zealand is the successor to the obligations of the UK government which negotiated the Treaty, since we are now independent. And it is also binding on us because it is a valid treaty at international law."

In its draft Treaty Principles bill, Act has made an attempt to rewrite a document that was written, debated and signed in te reo, to mirror their own libertarian ideologies.

Much of their rhetoric, and that of their funders, has been inflammatory and divisive - a classic case of ‘pernicious polarisation.'

Libertarianism, which elevates individual liberty and private rights over notions of collective responsibility, is historically and culturally specific.

It traces back to strands in Greek philosophy and Christianity as well as philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill.

Its support among the New Zealand electorate is slight, as indicated by Act's 8.4 percent share of the vote.

Libertarianism is also radically at odds with the framings of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In 1840, te reo was the dominant language of the land, and relational thinking the dominant philosophy. In keeping with this kind of logic, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is framed as a chiefly gift exchange between the rangatira of the various hapu, and Victoria, the Queen of England.

In Ture / Article 1 of Te Tiriti, the rangatira give all the ‘kawanatanga' (governance) of their lands, absolutely and forever, to the Queen of England. In Ture / Article 2, Queen Victoria agrees with the rangatira and the hapu to uphold the tino rangatiratanga of their lands, dwelling places and all their treasures.

In Ture / Article 3, in exchange for the gift of kawanatanga, the Queen promises to protect the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand, and gives to them ‘nga tikanga rite tahi' (tikanga absolutely equal) with her subjects, the inhabitants of England.

Act's attempt to rewrite Te Tiriti as a statement about individual liberty and property rights is presumptuous since they clearly can't read the original.

Through partial and misleading translations, they seek to erase the ‘tino rangatiratanga' (the term that Henry Williams used as a translation equivalent for ‘independence' in He Whakaputanga, Declaration of Independence in 1835) of hapu, although this is unequivocally acknowledged by Queen Victoria in Ture 2.

As a group of licensed translators of te reo has noted, Act's proposed Treaty principles are based on "additions, omissions and distortions of the original text," and are unethical and inaccurate.

Basing a referendum on this kind of misrepresentation would be an offence against the democratic process in New Zealand, and a betrayal of our best values.

Like tikanga maori, Western political philosophy is not purely about individual rights.

It also includes many strands of relational thinking - about collective rights and responsibilities, and democracy ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,' for example.

The same is true of the law, which is fundamentally about relationships among groups as well as individuals, and how these should be conducted.

Values including honour, truth and justice resonate closely with ideas such as mana, pono and tika.

The ‘scales of justice' remind one of the balanced, reciprocal exchanges in debates on the marae. This is the way in which discussions of the contemporary significance of Te Tiriti ought to be conducted. Continue reading

• Anne Salmond is a Distinguished Professor at the University of Auckland, and was the 2013 New Zealander of the Year. She became a Dame in 1995 under National, and was awarded the Order of New Zealand in 2020.

Seymour stands by the letter, saying that the social housing development had a history of anti-social behaviour and he was "telling it like is". Continue reading

Speaking in the minor party leaders debate last Saturday Seymour said having babies while on the benefit was an "outrage" to working parents, and "the biggest driver of child poverty in this country.

"We don't want the state controlling people's reproduction. That's disgusting.

"What we do need to say is that we have a crisis in this country where one in five children are born into a family dependent on a benefit."

Seymour said that if a person on the benefit keeps having children they will be subject to income management.

"We're gonna pay your rent, pay your power, pay for the groceries so the kids get the benefit of those resources and we break the cycle of child poverty in this country."

In July Seymour told Jack Tame on TVNZ1's Breakfast the $60 benefit for every New Zealand child promised by the Labour Party would lead people to intentionally profiteer off having more children.

"At the margin, yes people will change their mind [about having children] because they'll say 'oh the Government will give me this money now'," Mr Seymour said.

He told Tame "all of the things a bleeding heart liberal, like yourself Jack, worries about all the time have been created, in terms of child poverty, by a welfare experiment gone wrong over the last 50 years."

Around the same time ACT deputy leader Beth Houlbrooke said the Labour Party promise "could extend the misery of child poverty and even child abuse", and that "parents who cannot afford to have children should not be having them".

Seymour said it just happened to be a coincidence that he sent his social media followers a photograph of an ACT-branded condom on the same day his deputy leader said poor people shouldn't have babies.

The condom wrapper had a sticker saying, "Helping people keep more of what they make - Vote ACT."

Source

• Newshub
• Newshub
• TVNZ
• Image: Stuff

And her leader, David Seymour agrees with her, saying too many children were being born into poverty.

The Spinoff (an online magazine) followed up on this story by posting a list of 25 people ACT thinks should not have been born.

Houlbrooke was reacting to the announcement of the Labour Party's $60-a-week baby bonus policy.

On her Facebook page she said Labour's policy of paying people to have babies encourages them to grow their families when they're not properly mature or financially prepared.

Her post generated a vitriolic response. Police are making enquiries after she received a message saying she needed "the bashing or a bullet"

Houlbrooke declined to confirm whether the complaint had been laid by her, citing ACT health and safety policies.

She said she'd had no contact with police and that the message in question was the only negative response directed at her.

Speaking RNZ's Morning Report, Houlbrooke clarified her position.

"It's not to say people on low incomes can't have children.

"Plenty of them make a very good fist of it.

"And they do that because they've got prospects and a plan."

That included being in a stable relationship or having strong family connections and stable housing.

She said ACT believed giving handouts increased dependency, so it was not fixing the root of the problem.

"What happens when the handout runs out after three years is you still have a child living in a family who cannot afford to meet its needs."

In her own case, she put off having children until she could afford it, at the age of 27.

"I have many friends who have put off having children until their late 30s, early 40s and they've done it successfully," she said.

"There's no rush to have children at an early age."

Source

• Facebook
• Newhub
• RNZ
• Image: Stuff

"Well personally, I don't think they [the State] should. However, it's a matter of almost no significance because it just doesn't happen."

Whyte said that this was his are his views, not ACT views and not policies.

Asked by the New Zealand Herald to comment Whyte said he was "very opposed" to incest.

"I find it very distasteful I don't know why anybody would do it but it's a question of principle about whether or not people ought to interfere with actions that do no harm to third parties just because they personally wouldn't do it."

"I don't think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage, but there are two very important elements here - consensual and adult".

"I wonder who does believe the state should intervene in consensual adult acts?"

On Thursday, speaking on RadioLive Mr Whyte admitted he had regretted the comments published in an article on The Ruminator Website, because he had "let the Party down."

Source

• The Ruminator
• The New Zealand Herald
• The New Zealand Herald
• Image: 3News

I follow his case with interest. Nobody who was at university at the same time as Rick could forget him, in part because he was a top English literature student, in part because of his vocals in local bands, and partly because he was there in the great late 60s rush into dope, which back then was a novelty.

I'm not breaking confidence here, since Rick has admitted to a long-standing use of cannabis.

He has now been jailed twice for drug crimes, has 14 previous drug convictions, and is three months into a two-year sentence for having cannabis to sell, along with having small amounts of cannabis oil, ecstasy and cocaine at his place.

My point is not about him in particular - I'm sorry to see he's in this position - but about the attitudes among middle-class people of that era that surface when they run into difficulties with the police.

They adopt a posture that's part aristocratic disdain, and part disbelief: police exist to hassle other people, surely, not people who've read Dostoevsky and know how to hold a knife and fork. You get this, too, with fraudsters who are suddenly called to account, and with bad drivers.

Perhaps it was this instinctive understanding that made ACT leader Don Brash, keen to slash Government spending, moot legalising cannabis and making dope-dealing OK.

That might be the one politically appealing idea Brash will ever come up with that could attract old stoners, though unfortunately they're the last people who would vote for him.

Rick wants home detention, and who can blame him? He has a music room at home, and creature comforts, and could easily pretend the whole darn court thing had never happened. Prison is not a nice place: he knew that already: its unpleasantness is meant to be its point.

But his arguments could only have been dreamed up by a white middle-class offender who'd woken from a bad dream only to discover he was living it.

No Maori, let's say, the 12 per cent of the population who make up half this country's prison population, would dream of appealing on the grounds - among other things - of not belonging there because you don't get enough sunshine, and you don't like air conditioning.

What made me think about this is Hone Harawira, who snarled about the appalling Maori rate of imprisonment on TV7 the other night. I wonder how successful Maori are at getting home detention.

Harawira is hard to take, but often right.

Read the full article

• Source: Rosemary McLeod in The Press
• Image: topnews.net.nz

The former marketing manager says he is not a racist and that those who speak "the truth" - like sacked Employers and Manufacturers Association boss Alasdair Thompson - are punished.

In an open letter to Brash, Pita Sharples said "How sad and disturbing to read your negative ACT party advertisement in the NZ Herald's Weekender - July 9, as you once again bring the Maori people's aspirations into contempt and ridicule. Your views are not only inaccurate and ill-founded, but are totally out of tune with middle New Zealand's ideals and aspirations for our country."

Source

• DomPost
• Source: Scoop