ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) leader David Seymour has called for a referendum and enlightenment on the progression from the original Treaty of 1840 to the modern construct of a partnership and co-governance interpretation largely delivered by a cabal of judges and lawyers, all unelected, that will establish a theocracy of the unelected elites of the part- blood descendants numbering currently in the region of 17% of New Zealand’s population, of those natives whose chiefs signed on their behalf, the Document evolved for Governor Hobson by a few Missionaries who had garnered a brief understanding of the tribal lingoes of those primitive times c1840.
An illustrious commenter here , a former swamp dweller and Minister of the Crown jumped in to decry my simple peasant views of a document that has had more modifications than the VW Beetle of Nazi Germany that first appeared in 1938 and remained as a “Platform peoples car” for decades into the post millennial 21st century. However the design had by 2003 become entirely surpassed as an affordable peoples car that eventually surpassed Henry Ford’s Model “T”.Likewise a treaty, quite common as a means of getting to a solution for the insoluble of those times of empire creation and war resolution, that today are consigned to “file 13” as no longer relevant or even useful in any way. The Waitangi effort has been resuscitated many times and in the latter quarter of the 20th century was latched onto by academia and some of the spawn of those declining in importance institutions, as a sop ( for political advantage naturally) to the segment of New Zealand inhabitants claiming a relationship to those natives, however tenuous or relevant, who then had welcomed “The Treaty” as a way to citizenship and peaceful cohabitation with neighbouring tribes who had for centuries solved everything by force, enslavement and vanquishment.
There is nothing more pathetic and obtuse in creating of an often unverifiable list of tribal affiliation for someone who lists various what they consider relevant tribal affiliations and totally disregards the Scots, English, Scandy, or whatever origins of the non Maori blood lines that make up such a modern construct as a member of a “first people”.
Go get him Wayne if that is your want, for me as one who considers much of what becomes of interest to “The Tribunal” as rewriting history and little else, I welcome the attempt by a Political leader to attempt , if not end the gravy train, at least allow Joe And Josephine Citizen some discussion where we might end up as a civilised society down the track.
No Minister 
GD I wish you would stop uttering criticisms of Wayne.
Not only is he part of the elite but a paid up member of the born to rule National Party and therefore knows better whats best for our country and us than we do. So please recognize that.
I see Mr Seymour stuck his reliable finger in the air and saw which way the wind is blowing. Once again though he takes the chicken way out and offers a referendum. The right thing to have done is to say very loudly and clearly HELL NO it’s not happening if I have anything to do with it.
We’ll said GD and OC.
Maori culture , politics and economics was a total failure pre 1840. They had immigrated here 700 years earlier than that point but their leadership had taken them nowhere but into abject misery.
It would appear a new leadership cabal has arisen that wants to take Maori back to that failure. Unfortunately it seems to want the rest of the country with them .
At least a referendum gives the nation a chance to debate it out loud.
This debate is particularly important for as GD points out the political system as it stands has failed us in allowing such a monstrous idea of finding success in past failures is a way forward for this country.
That we are forced to have that referendum is only another key indicator of New Zealand’s failed nation status.
Still as long as nobody interferes with my beach holiday next Xmas I’ll be happy. (sarc)
The idea of a referendum on Crown Maori relations is absolutely absurd. By definition we are dealing with minority interests. That is not something that would ever be put to a referendum so a majority could run rough shod over minority interests. It is not an accident democracy is “majority rules, minority rights”. In short a majority cannot simply override minority rights as if they are utterly irrelevant.
I know some here noted that National used to have a policy to do away with the Maori electoral seats. That policy never had a chance of proceeding because there was way too much resistance in the caucus to actually do it. In the end the policy was quietly dropped.
There is a zero chance that National will ever agree to such a referendum. I simply cannot see National rolling over on such an issue, which I would imagine would be seen by most National caucus members as a core issue. National would have to turn its back on over 30 years of history on Crown Maori relations, particularly on treaty settlements.
I don’t believe there is anything that Act can do that would force National to agree to such a referendum. Act are effectively in the same space as the Greens. Dependent on their major coalition party for concessions. The Act party will obviously get things that are important to them, but they won’t get things that would just about destroy National’s internal cohesion.
As an extension to this idea of negotiating power, for instance would National ever agree to Act’s policy for a flat tax rate of 25%? The answer is no. If Act wants such a policy they will have to be the largest party on the right and centre right. In that case, as the smaller party, National would agree.
It is the same with the proposed Treaty referendum. If Act wants that, they will have to displace National as the largest party on the centre right/right. However, unlike the tax policy, it is not a guarantee that such a referendum would happen. Such a referendum might be a step too far for National, even if National was the smaller party in the coalition.
However, it is obviously a general proposition that political parties only get to decide the main direction of the government if they are the major party in the coalition.
Heh. Although I agree with that argument, the fact is that we’ve just had a year where that has been exactly what has happened in New Zealand.
The simple fact is that some minorities are more important than others.
How interesting. Pity they didn’t show that resistance in public before they were voted into power, partly based on that policy. It would have been more honest.
The Americans have a term for that: it’s called Bait-And-Switch.
Tom one thing about Wayne is you can always rely on him to come along and remind us what an evil pack of scum National really are.
It really burns me that we probably have no choice but to vote for them only because they will maybe be less bad than Labour.
Tom,
The policy of abolishing the Maori seats was never a core policy. There were other things that were way more important. So those who supported it, or in fact had come up with it, never even tried to push the policy within caucus to actually implement it. It was much easier for caucus to deal with the things that united the team, such as employment law reform, tax cuts, a host of micro economic reform, various justice policies and the social investment policy.
Once John Key did the deal with the Maori Party in 2008, the policy simply disappeared from discussion. Everyone understood that such a policy could not survive when doing a deal with the Maori Party. That deal was done in order to balance Act, so between 208 and 2017 National was never dependent on a single coalition partner. Though in the last term (2014 to 2017) any policy that needed legislative change required the support of all 3 coalition partners. Fortunately a lot can be done administratively.
Yes, I assumed commenters would pick up on the covid rules. However, they were always intended o be short term. Treaty issues endure, so the principle matters a lot more..
Thank goodness the State thuggery on its own citizens using 1) fire hoses, 2) bricks, 3) batons, 4) punches to the head of old men, 5) tear gas etc, all supported by that nice Mr Luxon, were “short term”. I feel much better with that kowledge.
Nick … again, you have lost the plot … reference your assertion that the police used bricks against the rioters. Most of us saw the rioters using them against the police. As for the rest of your garbage … you riot, you break the law, you accept the consequences. And why single out Luxon? The actions of the police received across the board support from parliamentarians … Labour, National, ACT, The Greens the Maori Party and the overwhelming support of Wellingtonians sick of being held to ransom.
And to all of you. Seymour was playing dog whistle politics at its worst. While I hate to say it Winston Peters was a 100% right in his response. The referendum is not needed. The concept of co-governance as evidenced by Three Waters and the health sector restructuring is wrong …. period You don’t hold a referendum to prove a wrong. You just reject it out of hand pure and simple. Simple really.. .