25/09/2023
Kia ora koutou,
Te Ao with Moana, Episode 30 - David Seymour - 8pm tonight on Maori TV - https://www.maoriplus.co.nz/playback/item/6337597910112
This was a 25-minute episode of Te Ao with Moana, a weekly current affairs show that examines national and international stories through a Māori lens. The host, Moana Maniapoto, interviews David Seymour, the leader of ACT New Zealand and the MP for Epsom. The topic of the episode is the role and relevance of ACT in the upcoming 2023 general election and its policies on various issues such as Covid-19, immigration, housing, education, health, and the Treaty of Waitangi.
The video is provocative and challenging, as it exposes the ideological differences and conflicts between the host and the guest. Maniapoto is critical and confrontational, questioning Seymour's views and values on matters that affect Māori and other minorities. Seymour is defensive and assertive, defending his party's principles and positions on individual freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. The video also reveals some of the common ground and agreement between the two, such as their support for euthanasia, cannabis reform, and free speech.
David's position on wanting a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi is based on his assumption that the Treaty is a simple and straightforward document that only grants Māori the rights of British subjects in exchange for ceding sovereignty to the Crown. He claims that this is the original and true meaning of the Treaty, and that any other interpretation or application of the Treaty is false and illegitimate. He also asserts that the Treaty has been used by Māori and their allies to demand and obtain special privileges and powers that are unfair and undemocratic, such as co-governance arrangements, veto rights, resource ownership, and preferential treatment. He argues that these arrangements are eroding the rights and sovereignty of all New Zealanders, and that they are creating a divided and unequal society.
However, David's position is flawed and problematic for several reasons. First, his assumption that the Treaty is a simple and straightforward document is inaccurate and misleading, as it ignores the fact that the Treaty was written in two languages, English and Māori, and that there were significant differences and discrepancies between the two versions. For example, the English version used the term "sovereignty" to describe what Māori ceded to the Crown, while the Māori version used the term "kawanatanga" (governorship), which implied a more limited and conditional authority. Similarly, the English version used the term "possession" to describe what Māori retained over their lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties, while the Māori version used the term "tino rangatiratanga" (full chieftainship), which implied a more comprehensive and absolute control. These differences and discrepancies have led to different interpretations and understandings of what the Treaty actually meant and promised for both parties.
Second, his claim that any other interpretation or application of the Treaty is false and illegitimate is arrogant and disrespectful, as it disregards the views and values of Māori as the indigenous people of New Zealand, who have their own culture, language, and identity. It also disregards the views and values of other New Zealanders who recognise and respect the Treaty as a living document that evolves over time and adapts to changing circumstances. It also disregards the views and values of various authorities and institutions that have affirmed and applied the Treaty in different ways, such as courts, tribunals, commissions, governments, councils, agencies, organisations, schools, universities, businesses, media, arts, sports, etc. These authorities and institutions have acknowledged that the Treaty is not a static or fixed document, but a dynamic or flexible one that reflects a dynamic or flexible one that reflects the changing needs and aspirations of both parties. Therefore, David's claim is not only inaccurate and misleading, but also insulting and offensive to many New Zealanders who value and honour the Treaty as a source of identity, rights, and responsibilities.
Third, his argument that the Treaty has created a system of racial privilege and division that undermines democracy and national unity is unfounded and exaggerated, as it ignores the reality and evidence of the social and economic conditions and outcomes of Māori and other New Zealanders. It also ignores the benefits and contributions of the Treaty to the development and diversity of New Zealand society and culture. The reality and evidence show that Māori are not privileged or favoured by the Treaty, but rather disadvantaged and discriminated against in many areas, such as health, education, employment, income, housing, justice, etc. The benefits and contributions of the Treaty show that Māori have not divided or separated from New Zealand, but rather enriched and enhanced it with their culture, language, identity, values, knowledge, skills, arts, sports, etc. Therefore, David's argument is not only baseless and exaggerated, but also harmful and divisive to many New Zealanders who seek and support a more inclusive and equitable society.
Fourth, his proposal to hold a referendum on the Treaty and its implications for co-governance arrangements between the Crown and Māori is impractical and risky, as it raises many questions and challenges that are difficult or impossible to answer or resolve. For example, how would the referendum question be worded or framed? How would the principles of the Treaty be defined or legislated? How would the co-governance arrangements be identified or evaluated? How would the referendum outcome be implemented or enforced? How would the referendum process be conducted or monitored? How would the referendum impact be measured or assessed? These questions and challenges could create more confusion and controversy than clarity and consensus. They could also trigger more disputes and conflicts than solutions and agreements. Therefore, David's proposal is not only impractical and risky, but also unnecessary and undesirable for many New Zealanders who prefer and trust a more collaborative and consultative approach to resolving Treaty issues.
Maniapoto supported the role and function of the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry that makes recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to Crown actions that breach the Treaty of Waitangi¹. She said that the Tribunal was an important mechanism for Māori to seek justice and redress for historical and contemporary grievances, and to protect and advance their rights and interests under the Treaty. She also praised the Tribunal for its contribution to Māori knowledge, research, and education, and for its recognition and affirmation of Māori culture, language, and identity.
Seymour opposed the existence and operation of the Waitangi Tribunal as a biased and divisive institution that undermines the rule of law and national unity. He said that the Tribunal was a waste of time and money, as it produced endless reports and recommendations that were either ignored or rejected by the government, or that created more problems and conflicts than they solved. He also criticised the Tribunal for its lack of independence, accountability, and transparency, and for its promotion of a separatist and victim mentality among Māori.
Moana and David had very different positions on prisons. Moana was critical and skeptical of David's policy to increase the prison population and capacity, and to impose tougher sentences for serious crimes. She said that his policy was based on a punitive and retributive approach that did not address the root causes or solutions of crime, such as poverty, inequality, racism, trauma, addiction, etc. She also said that his policy was harmful and ineffective, as it would increase the cost and overcrowding of prisons, reduce the rehabilitation and reintegration opportunities for offenders, violate human rights and due process, and stigmatise and criminalise Māori and other minorities. She cited some statistics and studies that showed that New Zealand had one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and that Māori made up more than half of the prison population, despite being only 15% of the general population. She also cited some examples and models from other countries that had adopted more humane and restorative approaches to justice, such as Norway, Sweden, Canada, etc.
David was defensive and confident of his policy to increase the prison population and capacity, and to impose tougher sentences for serious crimes. He said that his policy was based on a deterrent and preventive approach that aimed to protect the safety and property of New Zealanders from violent and repeat offenders. He also said that his policy was fair and responsible, as it would hold offenders accountable for their actions, ensure that they faced the consequences of their crimes, require them to complete skills or rehabilitation programmes before being considered for parole, and remove any cultural or ethnic considerations in sentencing decisions. He cited some statistics and studies that showed that New Zealand had a high crime rate, especially for violent crimes such as murder, r**e, assault, etc., and that many offenders were recidivists who committed more crimes after being released from prison. He also cited some examples and models from other countries that had adopted more tough and strict approaches to justice, such as Singapore, Japan, USA, etc.
David's policy positions were credible in the sense that they were consistent with his party's principles and vision, and that they were based on some evidence and logic. However, they were also controversial and debatable, as they were challenged by Maniapoto and other critics who had different views and values, and who pointed out some of the flaws and gaps in his arguments and data. Therefore, David's policy positions were not universally accepted or agreed upon, and they required further scrutiny and evaluation.
I've looked into David's policies on his website and other places. Let me know if you are interested in having a looksy at them.
Ngā mihi,
Ivor Jones
Source: Conversation with Bing, 25/09/2023
(1) Te Ao with Moana Series 5 Episode 13 | Māori Television. https://www.maoritelevision.com/.../te-ao-moana-series-5....
(2) Te Ao with Moana - MĀORI+ | Whakaata Māori (Māori Television). https://www.maoriplus.co.nz/.../62714501.../te-ao-with-moana.
(3) Te Ao with Moana | New Season | On Demand https://bit.ly/2wkkyxd .... https://www.facebook.com/.../te-ao-with.../553214525320404/.
(4) Te Ao with Moana | New Season | Rāhina, 8pm | On Demand ... - Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/.../te-ao-with.../504447634053256/.
(5) ALL THE BEST - TE AO WITH MOANA: SUMMER SERIES. https://www.maoritelevision.com/.../all-best-te-ao-moana....
(6) Winston Peters vs David Seymour: their 15 most venomous insults, ranked. https://thespinoff.co.nz/.../winston-peters-vs-david....
(7) Election 2023: ACT's David Seymour, Green's Chlöe Swarbrick clash on AM over 'race-baiting' politics. https://www.msn.com/.../that-s-not-what-i-ve.../ar-AA1hcfyc.
(😎 Watch: David Seymour joins Kerre Woodham in studio. https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/.../watch-david-seymour.../.
(9) David Seymour (New Zealand politician) - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/.../David_Seymour_%28New_Zealand....
(10) Election 2023: ACT's David Seymour, Green's Chlöe Swarbrick ... - Newshub. https://www.newshub.co.nz/.../election-2023-act-s-david....
(11) David Seymour - MP for Epsom and Leader of ACT. https://www.davidseymour.org.nz/.
(12) undefined. https://bit.ly/2wkkyxd.
(13) undefined. https://fal.cn/3efsA.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 25/09/2023
(1) Waitangi Tribunal | Waitangi Tribunal. https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/.
(2) About the Waitangi Tribunal | Waitangi Tribunal. https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/about/.
(3) Waitangi Tribunal 1975 | by Education at Waitangi. https://www.waitangi.org.nz/learn.../waitangi-tribunal-1975.
(4) 45 years of the Waitangi Tribunal - University of Auckland. https://www.news.library.auckland.ac.nz/.../45-years-of.../.
A weekly current affairs show that examines national and international stories through a Māori lens.
