This video highlights exactly why debate and clarification is needed. Without debate and clarity, this will go on frustrating generation after generation of New Zealanders.
Dude that likes to text and send vids to 13 year old girls, can’t even pronounce ‘Māori’ correctly. I wonder if he thinks we can’t see through his paid shill work from the Atlas group that he worked for in Canada, trying to strip the rights of indigenous people to pump the oil and gas from the land, royalty free. It’s impressive to see him sit up straight, when he doesn’t have a backbone.
Here is the clarification: The majority of Rangatira signed te Tiriti. They did not cede sovereignty to the crown nor give them permission to confiscate land, apply unequal rates, or breakup ownership of Maori land into individually owned blocks. Te Tiriti was authenticated by William Hobson. End of discussion.
The Treaty has its own clarification written in black and white. The problem is the government don't like that clarification so they decided to come up with their own vague clarifications.
I want to share more nuance to this debate, by analysing David Seymour’s opening statement from 2:32 to 5min. Read on if you’re interested. - He quotes the Waitangi Tribunal said this bill tramples over all Māori. I can’t find a single source online that says this. He references their report, I can’t see that statement in their public report. So this is either a direct lie by him to coax people into his perception of the Waitangi Tribunal, or he’ll need to actually provide evidence of that. Waitangi tribunal’s report specifies where this Bill goes wrong, I’d recommend reading it for yourself and not hearing a politician twist it to their advantage. - He uses previous policies as examples of how NZ is held back by ancestry alone. But doesn’t reference that these policies were attempts to redress historical grievances and meet our current Treaty Principles of Partnership and Protection. Painting this as solely a debate of ancestry is concerning and narrow-minded to the context of our country. - He mentions it’s a problem to have to consult with Māori and to have to take differences in perspective into account - ironic considering he is advocating for equal rights. This is an example of why politicians call this Bill overly simplified. His version of equal rights doesn’t seem to take into account differences people have by culture, but rather, that we become one NZ. It’s also overly simplified because the concept of equality vs equity is well known to most now. Equality is that everyone has shared value, a basic concept everyone knows. Equity is ensuring that everyone, no matter your start in life, will have the same equal outcomes. What looks like privilege to some e.g. Treaty settlements, scholarship for Māori, health funding and prioritisation for Māori, are part of trying to create equitable outcomes and redressing historical grievances as recent as the 1970s. Our parents or grandparents generations. It’s an effort to help Māori who are on the lowest statistics for health, education, incarceration etc be given the same outcomes as non-Māori. To add; the settlements allowed some Iwi like Ngāi Tahu to reinvest this money into their next generations and try and give them equitable outcomes e.g Māori scholarships, housing etc. Iwi organisations like this meet the Charity Tax bracket because of this. Some people will view this as a cultural privilege because they feel left out, but they are already born into and exist in a system that generally gave their grandparents, parents etc more support. Why has this Bill become divisive? Several things are happening here that’s causing an unnecessary racial divide, stoked by the manner of which this Bill has come about. There are processes in place to protect Māori rights and Crown-Māori relations e.g the Principles in the judicial system, the Waitangi tribunal. Their interpretations aren’t legislated, which keeps it adaptable and evolving to NZ across the decades. It’s in the Spirit of the Treaty. Along comes this government who repeals Te Aka Whai Ora, an organisation established o address disparities in Māori health outcomes, which pushes against equity. It attempted to rewound the use of te reo Māori in public service, which anyone who has been alive for more than a decade and been in Public Service, knows has been a huge help in gaining Māori trust back into government. This naturally feels like the government is going backwards on Māori, raising concerns. Then David Seymour drafts his own Bill with his own definitions that reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi and how it will be legislated. Without consultation of Māori who are a signatory of that same Treaty. Without proper expert evidence or policy either. Ignoring decades of hundreds of lawyers, courts, Waitangi Tribunal etc advice, in fact, demeaning them as less than his own intelligence. You know. As a politician. And what does parliament do? It allows the Bill to be introduced to parliament as part of their coalition deal. That is such a huge slap to Crown-Māori relations in the last 50 years, to generations of people who protested, suffered, endured, learned how to come back to the table and work together and figure out a way moving forward together. That is why the Haka in parliament, as a challenge to this government’s irreverence. That is why the Hikoi saw tens of thousands of people. That’s why Māori, and other indigenous people are aggrieved (and for people who aren’t aware, indigenous people are cultures that existed pre-colonisation by the British Empire, as defined by the United Nations, which includes Māori, AND the Moriori who are indigenous to Chatham Island and Pitt Island - I recommend reading Moriori descendent Maui Solomon’s piece on Moriori: Still Setting the Record Straight as well.) What we have is a politician who knows how to speak and present himself in a way to lull you into feeling this is all quite reasonable. Please, don’t fall for this. A politician is a politician. I am also a critic of the left; before anyone assumes my own politics based on this. My intention is just to spread more awareness and context that’s coming behind this Bill. I do personally believe we should all have a debate, but not a referendum yet; and I agree the Bill shouldn’t be passed. NZ is a young country still figuring out its identity and values. My hope is that we can figure out a way forward that has equitable outcomes for us all, that we come to a place where culture IS protected and can’t be threatened by the government of the day. Otherwise, this country is on the fast track of looking A LOT like America.
If anyone is also interested on the key demographic David Seymour talks to; a recent article by Craig Ashworth, a Local Democracy Reporter from Taranaki, was at a small event where David Seymour was speaking a few days ago. The article ‘ACT’s David Seymour won’t ’bow down’ to his hāpu leader’ has a sensational title, but the rest of the article is good. People at this event said about Māori “they are like seagulls, if you feed them, more come and they start crapping on you” “there’s a self serving reinterpretation of the Treaty to benefit the Māori elite” “before Pakeha bought colonisation and war, Māori were killing each other anyway” and more on what percentage of Māori ancestry should count, and Māori organisations with charity tax status should be investigated. This audience was predominantly over 60 and applauded the loudest during Seymour’s speech, on the government cutting 6000 public servant roles - you know, some of the same people without jobs to support their families, who helped NZ through Covid, who helped support our healthcare system and others. Efficiencies need to happen? Of course. Applauding for 6000 people losing their jobs and affecting 6000 kiwi families? Yeah. Yeah no. Now. It’s important to note from this article that David Seymour did not say any of this. He just decided to speak to these people in a small gathering. But, when David Seymour’s iwi Ngāti Rēhia came out to support the Hikoi and that they oppose the Bill, iwi leaders met with Seymour in person that they have serious concerns that this Bill will hurt our people. As an aside, it already has. But Seymour went on to disregard them, with polite contempt, saying ‘if being Māori means I have to bow down and follow leadership, then that’s not a very attractive proposition’. Again, twisting what Ngāti Rēhia actually said and came to him with. Like a politician does. So, a reminder to everyone. When you hear David Seymour politely and ‘reasonably’ discussing equal rights or what his evidence is to the majority of NZ’ers, remember that he is a politician who knows the game.
David, I respect you more after this interview. Your patience and professionalism is superb. You have shown your knowledge and belief for equal human rights👏
Interesting fact... NZ has signed Free Trade Agreements that have specific clauses that protect NZ. They are Treaty of Waitangi clauses that allow Maori rights of consultation and limit the ability of international corporates to control our country. See what DS is up too for his overseas mates.
In section 6 of the bill it explicitly states that prosecution under the law set out by this bill does not have jurisdiction over the settlements of land claims under the Treaty of Waitangi act 1975, and yes, the decisions of the waitangi tribunal. Do you still feel confident about alleging international treachery and collusion with foreign adversaries after literally not reading the bill and being dead wrong?
Thank you Jack Tame yet again I am highly appreciative of your work. Helps me as a māori with limited understand get a better grasp on the conversation. Love your passion for truth.
Jackie Boy is a woke joke who pushes the Maori line because it is the gift that keeps on giving, he will always be sure to find some descent to push for his bosses, he is just a biased little stooge. I am sorry for you being ''a Maori with limited understanding'' but you will never get the whole story relying on people like Jackie Boy to give you the facts.
Well argued from both sides. I agree with David that we want to work as one to ensure our values are maintained and upheld but revising the treaty principals is not the avenue to do this in my opinion. The treaty was clearly in agreement / contract between the crown and Māori and therefore the principals should be left and interpreted as is. Great debate and a discussion well over due.
Someone had to bring it up someone had to have the conversation. The country is sadly divided. You can't have different rights for one person And different rights for another. It doesn't work. Look at other countries that are fighting. Why can't I have the same rights as you
You have to be deaf dumb or blind if you’re unable to see that DS is manipulating the way we look at the treaty and race relations in nz. He’s a clever man. I mean you’d have to be if you’re affiliated with atlas network, an organisation comprised of people with the knowledge and power to strip and bypass cultural land laws held by indigenous peoples the world over for the purpose of financial gain by means of mining, reaping natural resources and many other questionable acts. But you already knew all that.
Look at what the big high corporate have done like rio tinto..mining and what did the people get..nothing..poverty ..same as here in Australia until the Aborigine went to courts etc there lands were reclaimed...
21:00 Jack puts the mirror up to David, the English text of Article 2 and now David wants to run with his interpretation of Maori text. Again David, what are you? Maori or Crown? The key issue is that David has run a unilateral process to write this bill. The Treaty of Waitangi established a partnership between Māori and the Crown based on mutual respect and good faith. Defining Treaty principles unilaterally breaches this partnership and contravenes the Crown's obligation to act in consultation and collaboration with Māori. The lack of meaningful engagement with Māori violates the principle of rangatiratanga. Furthermore, consultation is not a courtesy but a requirement under the Treaty and this process appears dismissive of Māori voices, undermining the legitimacy of the proposed legislation.
Nah mate I don’t see the word partnership in the treaty, it ain’t there. Māori ceded the ability to govern, plain and simple. They wanted law and order and a better future, which is what they got. Radical minority of Maori now trying to dishonour the treaty, to renege on it. It ain’t gonna happen. Māori have no more right to this land than any other citizen. Māori aren’t indigenous, they pitched up here on a boat from from somewhere else, just as the British did.
The Treaty doesn't state a partnership between Maori and the Crown. That was a poor interpretation by a judge during a ruling of a case in 1987. Partnership was never the agreement. If that was the case, Maori chiefs should've negotiated for a protectorate with the British.
If you care about equality of rights and responsibility... all who support the Bill need to do a couple important things first. Over 26,000 Hectares of Maori Land locked in perpetual leases right now. Maori owners not allowed to charge Fair market rates and make a Fair income for over 100 years. Thousands of acres of Maori Land on 99 year leases. Many not paying a Fair lease rate (many not paying anything) for decades now, which is reason enough to break lease. Some say 'but look at the improvements I have made' but you haven't paid a Fair Lease fee for decades, viewing it just as 'Maori Land'. Take the buildings and move onto other Land where you get Free or extremely low lease rates. Fair Treatment? Equality? These Lease agreements are modern day scamming and theft over a span of 50,60,70,80,90,100 plus years. Until these unequal Treatment of Maori get rectified, all who support the Bill are HYPOCRITES ❤
Our fundamental human rights are protected under the Human Rights Act 1993 and the Bill of Rights Act 1990. It's not the treaty's job to do that. The treaty is a contract between nations based on the same concept the UK was founded on ( in their case a treaty between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England). I think we'd all agree that Scottish people desiring a certain level of autonomy as a separate identity and culture to the English isn't a controversial or negative thing, and that forcing "equality and unity" with England by making the Scots abolish their parliament wouldn't be a cute idea. Same principles apply here.
@@Kereru the human rights act and BoR are unfortunately very weak and were not enforced during Covid years. When the going gets tough, those rights get thrown out.
As an Australian, I can assure you that a treaty between the Crown and the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people is an idea they can only dream of. They are the most disadvantaged group in society by community standards and not having a treaty in place has had a devastating effect. The Maori are leading the way by international standards when it comes to first nations people having self-determination and land rights protection. That is something to be proud of. Te tiriti o waitangi must be protected at all costs. Kia Kaha ✊
The Mabo case which established allodial land rights for Torres Strait Islanders was judged using the same Law of equal rights to all as Mr Seymour is talking about. Mabo is a decision that has been used to establish land rights of peoples at the time of European contact in NZ as well. I'm wavering on support now and prefer NZ First position Remove all references to TOW out of parliament made law Id love to see a case taken by South Islanders against Ngai Tahu - who never signed the ToW btw
@@RaewynTairi That was the original intention of the treaty, but given that no one can interpret it accurately that's never been the case. I think if the "experts" can't interpret it, then it may as well go to a public referendum.
@rldrld7747 the experts can interpret te tiriti seymour cant. Why because he can't speak te reo. Tino rangatiratanga means self determination, sovereignty, independence autonomy. The term it's self is rooted in Maori world view, and there is no one english term that encapsulates it's meaning It doesn't mean goverance like seymour tries to make out it does
@@RaewynTairi Baseless racist claims, the Maori didnt havea world view, they had no concept of the world. You were stone age people, It is your language that lacks complexity and nuance. Stop romanticising the past.
@@Go_Home_British_Raj No Referendum. Maori Culture matters, and the likes of you must not be allowed to wipe your arse with a treaty that Maori people died tooth and nail, with their blood to defend.
Anyone who has read the Treaty (both English and contemporary Māori translation) would know that the principles (particularly principle 2) are fundamentally different to what was signed. The main distinction being that the Bill restricts Māori claims to their lands, waters, forestry etc to those that were settled in Treaty settlements. Basically this is saying "We already said we were sorry for colonising you, but now that 80% of people are non-Māori and 90% of land is not owned by Māori we're going to just forget about our colonial history (And all of the horrific transgressions of the 20th century)." I'm confident that the majority of people in support of this Bill have a nil understanding of New Zealand's history and how we got to where we are at now.
This bill isn't trying to discard moari owned land or moari significants in this country, it's saying that all people in this country are equal. History does indeed say that moari were disadvantaged and hard done by in some respects, but what history doesn't say is that giving different races different rights over one another is a successful endeavor. I believe that the treaty was definitely aimed at protecting maori, especially from foreign powers like France and Spain, but what the treaty intended, just like any other treaty around the world, was to recognize and agree on fundamental human rights and to give everyone a say. That's what the treaty propose was.
@@SamuelRoper-u5d the treaty was a testament to fundamental human rights, just like all treatys. It advocates peace and fairness, and if you can't see that, well then you should perhaps acctuelly pick up a history book and acctuelly read it. The things you say sound like nothing from a history book or anything. So no, I don't 'need you help' at all, in fact I think help is what you need, you clearly can't recognize or respect history.
Fun fact: millions of people voted in the election, the majority for parties other than ACT or TPM, who do support the principles Seymour sets out in this bill - meaning, one law for all. The ACT vote tally is neither here nor there.
@Laura Fun fact Laura, Put the bill to a referendum and then see how many people vote *For* it. Me no expert, but I suspect that it will garner 7 figures
It’s actually a terrible premise to say “where has this successfully worked” to put the burden of evidence on the people who actually haven’t had their way of life introduced to a system is ridiculous. The question is where has a system like the treaty of waitangi ever been introduced? I agree that clarifying needs to happen but not by this man. Let’s actually ask where the agreement hasn’t been met and what we’re going to do to address with the people of the land. If you’re wanting to create a constitution then do that. Don’t go tampering with a previously agreed upon contract.
The question was about those agreements existence. David lied and said no country exists that have indigenous protections and was caught nicely in his lie. It was simply a display that the man has to lie to have any type of point, which means he has no coherent point in reality.
@@Generative_Midi_he started it Maori didn't just wake up and decide to debate TToW with Politicians it's got nothing to do with them this is simple for us Maori who believe in contracts and TToW is one of them
There’s somewhere between 15-36000 Sami in Sweden. The Sami parliament is not sovereign, they are subservient to the Swedish Parliament. Sami people in Sweden don’t have co-governance nor are the Swedish govt forcing Sami culture and language onto the other 9m Swedes.
@ why would Sweden have a treaty with Sami, Sami and the ethnic Norse population have both been living side by side for thousands of years. Sami weren’t colonised.
That's why Sami attend the U.N with other indigenous people and are fighting through the U.N to have their lifestyles, culture and languages protected in the different countries they live in. The Sami are not sovereign because they're not allowed to be. In Northern Finland Sami reindeer herders are fighting forestry companies to try and keep their native forests, so that their reindeer will still have food. Apparently even white indigenous people have to fight to be treated equally under law. Of interest, Sami communities adopted the Maori concept of language nests to revitalise their own language dialects.
@ Sami languages are protected, what do you consider a Sami way of life, nomadic reindeer herding is not in any way economically sustainable. Sami who don’t herd reindeer live like every other Norwegian or Sweden. In Norway if the taxpayer didn’t subsidise reindeer herding the industry would have died out a long time ago. Have you ever been to Finland? The entire country is a forest, around 75% of the country is forest. I’ve driven from the border with Norway to Helsinki, its forest the entire way. I don’t know about Sweden since I live in Norway, at least 50% of Sami speak a Sami langage in Norway today, which is a far higher percentage than Māori who speak Māori. There’s about 10 different Sami languages spoken in Norway.
@ why should Sami be sovereign they haven’t lived there any longer then the ethnic Norse and Finnish populations they live amongst? They shouldn’t even be indigenous, they migrated from Siberia around the same time (or as much as 2000 years after, depending on source) as the Norse migrated north from Europe.
The treaty is not an agreement between races, there wasn't a big giant referendum that all British and Maori citizens over the age of 18 took part in at the ballot box. The Crown is not a race of people. The Crown is a governing body that represents the British. Te Triti was signed between Rangatira (Maori leaders) and representatives of the Crown. It was an agreement between two groups of governing, sovereign bodies about who should govern what and how. David Seymour admits this without even realizing it @5:11.
Ahh yes, I agree, we should do what our distant ancestors said to do, not what we think is right in a modern context. You know I think my neighbor has some good land I could colonies right about now, its what my ancestors did after all and that makes it right.
@@LauraTeAhoWhite The crown hasn't been a governing entity for NZ for a very long time. We are sovereign to the British Crown and the Treaty is no longer instrumental to the way in which the government governs us.. Basically it's non binding by law and can only be acted upon in good faith.
@rldrld7747 you are mistaken. Wherever the Treaty or the principles of the treaty are mentioned in a statute, the government is bound by those statutes. And wherever the treaty is mentioned in a Court of Appeal judgement, the government is bound by the courts decision. The most famous example of this is the Maori Council case they won against the Attorney General(1987), which not only stopped Roger Douglas selling the country down the toilet, it was the independent judicial body that expounded the treaty principles. As part of the legislature and one of the party's to the treaty, it is dishonest and treasonous of seymour to try and change NZ's constitution for his own interests.
@16:38 He said some. The ones he mentioned are not the ones driving this. He started working on this well over a decade ago when he was in Canada with atlas network
What sort of interview is this? Interviewer asks a question, then immediately interrupts him as he's responding. Then asks a new question, interrupts again. Does this a few more times and then deliberately misinterprets what they mean to say. What is going on here?
Jack interrupts Seymour every minute of this interview, sometimes within seconds of asking him a question. David shows exceptional patience and dignity.
Legacy media at its finest , give the guest the respect he deserves and let him explain , rather than asking question after question. Before he can finish the first one . How are we supposed to understand the bill if he can’t explain .
It is frustrating having separate entities and the costs that come with it. This is a small budget nation, and if we are going to build it up to be better for everybody we just won't have the means if we are making separate entities. Unless those separate entities are self funded or funded by those who use them.
Great point, if we ever do go down a co-governace model or separate governments then those who want to be governed by one or the other then they should definitely pay for it.
The crown doesn't care about anybody, just the crown! NZ along with all other Commonwealth states keep them propped up! Wake up NZ Te Tiriti is that one thorn in their side preventing them from total domination!
@@whenua1 Co-governance has existed since 1991 under Jim Bolger. It hasn't been a problem until Seymour manufactured a problem to pander to his racist voter base.
It has affected me in the last 2 months. I operate a small business in Auckland. We recently lost a government agency as a client to a Māori registered business. They had been our client for the previous 8 years. The agency must give a percentage of their contracts by quota to Māori registered business. This will be a big impact on myself and my family as replacing a client like this is hard in this market. It will be even harder given that any future proposals will be up against this same quota system favouring Māori businesses. (Hopefully when you said current u meant the ones in place now)
Ignoring the whole taking or wasting of non maori money aspect, the biggest one has to be partnership and participation. The need to have maori consult or get a cut and potentially veto nearly everything costs this country a ton in productivity and money
@@SamuelRoper-u5d lol 'educate yourself' is the universal social media code for 'I have no real argument against what you're saying, but im too childish to admit it' I'm more aware of the history than the majority of new zealanders.... but hey if you have a specific point you want to make, or book i should be reading then go for it
that is the irony of Jack's question and David's opposition to Australia, USA, Canada as examples. have actually adopted Seymour's more "we're all one people" approach after casting their indigenous aside. and Seymour clearly believes that hasn't been good
As a Māori I certainly agree with Seymour. Us Māori have often been treated as though we need special privileges or treatment, but this mindset can hold us back. We are not inherently more deserving or less deserving than anyone else in our nation. Instead of focusing on being victims or relying on a narrative of unfairness, we need to take responsibility and address critical issues within our communities-such as improving health outcomes, reducing crime, and advancing education and employment opportunities. This victim mentality weakens us and prevents progress. It’s time to shift the focus to real solutions and empower ourselves to create lasting change.
How very disingenuous, as expected. Note that there are no rights that individual citizens are getting, even in Seymour's words. On the right to be consulted - 'maybe not me, but the leaders of the hapu/runanga'... So the representatives of the group. I fear that Seymour is failing to make a distinction between the rights of individuals and the rights of groups. It's not impossible to respect both. We in the West have a tendency to forget that radical individualism is not the only way to think. Many cultures in the world with historical roots in a tribal or clan structure retain a belief that the group is more than the sum of its parts. The African concept of ubuntu works this way. Gaelic tanistry worked this way. The concepts of mana and tino rangatiratanga operate this way. The treaty doesn't give rights to individuals. It establishes the basis of the relationship between two peoples. Te Tiriti was and is an agreement signed between groups of equal status. Those two groups still exist - they don't just go away because some of us want to pretend we're American. Seymour's insistence on reinterpreting it through a lens of western individualism is to ignore the way the other party to the document understand themselves and the world - which is just to repeat the mistakes that landed us in all the conflict in the first place. Seymour's reaction to Tame crippling his 'interpretation' of tino rangatiratanga of calling it a 'cute argument' is really telling. He *wants* to translate it as 'self-determination' and equate that with the libertarian understanding of personal autonomy, rather than accepting that Maori understand it as a collective right to something more like sovereignty. So he wants to impose Western thought on Maori against their wishes in favour of the 'practicalities' of modern liberal democracy - except what he's describing isn't a modern liberal democracy. Modern liberal democracies understand that the rights of minorities (of any kind) have to be protected from the blunt instrument that is majority rule - almost always through the courts.
I feel Seymour is acting in good faith and fairly representing the views of many new Zealanders irrespective of their political philosophy, who share in common a belief in the inherent unfairness and unsustainability of any system which privileges one group of people more than other on the basis of ancestry. There is no way to reconcile democracy with two sovereigns cohabiting and co-governing. This is literally a recapitulation of apartheid and will lead to nothing good for the people of new Zealand, who are not a biculture, but rather a multiculture, and increasingly so every day. 160000 immigrants from the Philippines, India and China in the past year. Race and other identity features are incidental aspects of being citizens of a healthy democracy in which all people are enfranchised and nobody is more favored than the other.
Pfft! Good faith? Did we just watch the same clip? So what’s your understanding of good faith because he didn’t even consult with Maori representatives on this bill? He just skirted around the answer when Jack asked him directly who was involved in writing this bill. And you do not speak for ‘many New Zealanders’ when you have no evidence of how many NZers are actually in favour of this bill. If I hung around in circles of people who only ever agreed with my view then I would be saying the same thing. Also, please tell me how Maori are privileged because I look at every single negative statistic in this country and its Maori who hold that so called ‘privilege’. And why are you being so hysterical and bringing apartheid into the conversation? do you actually even know what that means? You seem to be reaching so hard to make an argument but it just comes off as, well, baseless and speculative. Please stop.
@@CosmicCompassionQuest So there's a few things going on here that I think need highlighting . 1. I'm not going to touch the absurdity of the privilege claim, but I will note the parroting of Seymour's talking point about distinctions on the basis of ancestry. Indigenous populations everywhere are always based on ancestry. They have no choice but to define themselves in terms of ancestry because everything they have other than that has been taken from them. To try and imply that paying attention to that fact equates to some kind of divisiveness on the part of Maori is nothing but malicious political spin. The core promise of the treaty - even if you lay aside the sovereignty/tino rangatiratanga question (which you shouldn't) - is that the Crown guaranteed that Maori could stay Maori. What Seymour is arguing for is a rejection of that fundamental commitment. 2. The suggestion that there is no way to reconcile democracy with two sovereigns co-governing is simply false. That's what treaty arrangements are for. It's complex and difficult, but the framework for it is well established at this point. Seymour doesn't even actually make the argument that the co-governance doesn't work - he just argues that its inconvenient for business. All this consulting with the Maori about the use of land and natural resources that fall under their jurisdiction is awful!. We should be free to pillage as we wish! It's not like the Treaty promised Maori tino rangatiratanga over their lands - oh wait. That's exactly what Article 2 promises. Well we should just ignore that! For profit! 3. There is no suggestion of separations between races in the Treaty or in our society, so raising the spectre of apartheid is absurd. As noted the rights and responsibilities of Maori to collectively act as stewards of their ancestral home makes literally no difference at all to their rights as individuals. Article Three guarantees them, as individuals, all the ordinary rights of British citizens. We have equal rights as individuals. It's the group rights that are different, and even then its not a difference of possession, but of use. We don't have a need to defend our culture, land, or people, because we have all the power - but if we didn't we'd have the same 'extra' rights as Maori (unless our new overlords decided to be harsher than the Crown was). 4. Raising the increasingly multicultural nature of New Zealand is disingenuous again - new immigrants are new immigrants. They are not new indigenous peoples. They can join as citizens of the Crown and enjoy the same individual rights shared by us all under Article 3. Maori are different - they were here first. The Crown did sign the Treaty with them. To say Maori culture is no different than any other is to ignore that this is their homeland. It's to deny that any indigenous peoples have a right to claim a meaningful connection to their own land. Which is, again, to ignore the Treaty entirely. 5. Again, and this cannot be stressed enough, this is not and never has been about race. That is the way Seymour wants to frame it to get a rise out of people who get angry about race. This is about nations. It is about peoples. And it is about an enduring legal treaty between two peoples. To reiterate, the *only* reason that the Maori iwi and hapu are defined by ancestry is because Maori as a culture revere their ancestors. Whakapapa is a core cultural concept that is made all the more important because, as I've pointed out, our colonial ancestors took nearly everything else. They even tried for decades to stamp out the language and culture. Seymour's argument is an attempt to impose Western european values on the Maori people without their consultation and against their wishes by appeal to a simple majority vote. And he's even bold enough to let us know that it's in the interest of smooth business operations. Well damn, it's just so inconvenient that these annoying people have a treaty that causes us legal headaches. Suppose we'll just have to rewrite it for them so they can't get in our way! And we'll wrap it up in a nice "freedom" bow so that everyone who's not Maori won't notice that that "freedom" doesn't include the freedom to be Maori.
Well there are individuals who benefit. I recently lost a govt contract to a Māori registered business. The agency must allocate a percentage of their work to Māori businesses. This had been my client for 10 years. So this individual who owns this Māori business has benefited in what isn’t a free market
Bill is flimsy and misleading. Did school children write it. It's a smokescreen. They desperately want to drill for Oil and consulting with Iwi and Environmental groups is annoying. They couldn't even consult Iwi over the Treaty Bill.
@@shanedevlin6714 how dumb are you? The only special treatment my whanau has received is having over 600 acres of our family land stolen of us in the 1950s. Stop it with the self righteous virtue signaling shallowly knowledged Bull Kaka.
@@shanedevlin6714 So nobodies contracts would matter anymore? Sweet. Goodbye mortgage. Unless you're advocating that it's only contracts with nga iwi Maori which don't need to be honoured?
David Seymour is a calm intelligent well spoken man who encourages free ideas, speech and open discussion. Te Pati Maori want only the speech that they agree with and want to close down anyone who has an alternate view.
The new rules won't have much to do with personal rights, they'll simply be to exploit the land for resources like never before -- expand quarries, mine the seabed, drill for oil and gas, expand into conservation land, don't worry so much about protecting freshwater quality. At least that's what's been greenlit so far.
I think the issue is not that Maori have different rights to everyone else, it’s the fact that Pakeha have the same rights as everyone that is not Maori.
So your idea of separate rights would be something like if Maori do something wrong media have the right to say Maori, where as if a pakeha does something wrong the media has the right not to say pakeha. We both know thats been happening. Or Maori got paid out 2.1 billion for confiscated land, and landlords got paid out 2.9 billion. I could go on. But theres others i need to educate. Goodbye
@@gouldmcclay met someone last year (previous government) who was told they had to wait 6 months for a cancer operation, however if Maori 4 weeks to operation. This looked like separation of rights on race.
@@gouldmcclayand they should as indigenous people of the land. The treaty protects these rights, to just give it up because they have become a minority in population is ludicrous. This is colonialism in 2024.
@@MrMahazestar you don't know the treaty articles at all because Maori seeded sovereignty and they are not indigenous as some would have you believe they 2 were colonisers just ask the moriori
I think self determination for Maori is important in order for them to continue uplifting and strengthening the unique culture whilst aiming for better health and educational outcomes. Just my opinion.
Sadly they are not capable of such achieving such outcomes, ..'uplifting and stenghthening' comes at a cost paid for by the taxpayer, neverending and ongoing...forever no doubt 'clipping the ticket' along the way, if they wish to do it under their own financial means then go for it...realistically it won't happen will it!...
2:08 ‘According to Curia polling…’ Would that be the same Curia that’s part of the Taxpayer’s Union (not a union, made up of people who’d rather not pay tax) that itself is under the influence of the Atlas Network..? Just asking.
Are you specially inclined? This is not some ancient language no one knows, learn the treaty, or stfu because you don't know what you are talking about. Learn the difference between tangata tiriti and a kiwi.
What you mean is the majority gets to decide what rights an indigenous minority should have, and going on form, it will essential boil down to repression.
@nica900 minority, I'm maori gay and a kaumatua, I was brought up to be a victim until I realized what a sad life I was leading and others were succeeding, so guess what, I rolled up my sleeves, took personal responsibility, had a tangi for my victimhood, and became a success. Our family just finished our papakainga, our own money blood sweat and tears and planted an ecosystem on Maori land, our maori land. Everybody wins, you wanna cry about repression, that's not my whanau's reality.
He admits that qualified academics and judges are not as qualified as he and a group of rich backers are to reinterpret a contract which even with a majority cannot overturn simply because it displeases them !! The sad part is ; they're playing the tune !!!
Jack is arguing that other systems of indigenous relations work where it is patently obvious that they don’t work. I lived in Aus for 25 years, some in the outback, and I saw the terrible conditions aboriginals struggled with. Alcoholism, abuse, housing… it was appalling. The Waitangi Tribunal is not a court of any standing . It has been hijacked by Māori activists and used for their own ends. If you really want to be totally blunt, activists are trying to create a South African style apartied state. They want control and separation and they want the white government to pay for it.
@bobsmith that's clear to see thats exactly what they want. Give them an inch they take a yard. No PM has had the guts to stop this and it's getting out of hand
💯 and we are sleepwalking into apartheid. Nzs don't realise that a a two tiered system is exactly what the activists want and is what they're inching towards through the help of the nz public.
HT for allowing comments. It was a helpful civilised discussion. People can be cute with words but one can't help feeling David's commonsense plan will win out in time. We can look forward to "one people, one law, one flag."
Hang on a minute Māori we’re moved from where they were living to another area because the white man wanted to build a town and a sea port where these Māori were living
I don’t have a position on this because I don’t understand it entirely but I do I think the mainstream media’s failure to present this bill objectively is not helping a) honest, open conversation about the actual facts of a complex issue and through their bias are b) creating more division in this country. Whether you agree or not, the fact remains Seymour represents a significant number of kiwis that are in favour of this bill and they can’t feel as though their position is demonised (even if it is in fact wrong). It’s forcing people to feel more emboldened in their position.
what is a significant number? Both sides have been represented in mainstream media and David has had more than his fair share of air time including uninterrupted in parliament. It is difficult to have an objective discussion when david is shamelessly putting a bunch of false statements out there
David thanks for your informative, Factual, Respectful, Explanation . You have an amazing moral compass. You never resort too hate speech or name calling when trying to get your point across. Very refreshing to hear that from someone of your standing. Others could learn a thing or two from how you carry yourself even when faced with someone who doesn’t agree with them
Good interview, Jack. Showed how one-sided the bill is. It's all about what he thinks the treaty should look like in todays world & unilaterally altering the meaning of Treaty for his purposes.
Jack lost it when he mentioned Canada, Oz, and the USA, but he got back on track when he remembered Sweden. Then all seymour could do was first try and ignore that Sweden been mentioned. Then, when Jack pushed Sweden again, seymour couldn't ignore it and obviously just started lying by saying Sweden was not a good example of where recognising indigenous rights works. Good work, Jack, by nearly losing it and then quickly exposing seymour as a dishonest liar.
@@rhysrautjoki7207jack just chose the most obscure example knowing he probably wouldn’t be informed about them. If you look into it they have similar issues and is not a perfect system either as jack would want you to believe
@@mynameis123456ish NO! The people who get a say are the people(and their descendants, as stated in the contract) who signed the contract. Why is that so hard to understand?
@@rhysrautjoki7207 Lol, he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Seymour is a liar. They are NOT "failed states" like Seymour claimed and they DO in fact exist.
Bill is a smokescreen. They desperately want to drill for Oil and sell assets. Consulting with iwi and Environmental groups is annoying. Couldn't even consult Iwi over the Treaty Bill.
NZ has more people now but ..if you own or were left a large amount of land ..why should that go to the govt to build for people who do not have a connection to your family.
I'm pakeha and am with a Maori partner, split by race is decisive, Maori should not lose anything the have set in the agreement, if this continues it gives some Maori the self entitlement you hear used when committing crime(bad decisions) jack is a typical pakeha scared to push forward for every new zealander rather than just Maori, you could go on for days, I didn't vote for act and probably won't going forward but imagine if there was a pakeha party, it would be considered racist and there is already an element of that in parliament with the Maori party who previously were fair but under current leadership seem extremely racist to me.
You mention crime which is interesting because Māori are over represented in the prison system which doesn't exactly suggest they're getting special treatment now does it? Seymour wants you to think this about equal rights, but the reality is we are all bound by the same laws and rules. In our day to day lives Tino Rangatiratanga just means Iwi consultation, which is effectively just one dimension of community consultation which NACT hate. Their real goal is to make us all equally powerless and voiceless and give multinational corporations carte blanche to profit off our resources. That's why as a pakeha I support the treaty.
We are no longer British subjects though we still belong to the commonwealth and 'the crown' is a Constitutional Monarchy that recognises the right of parliament to make laws.
Parliament very quietly made themselves 'sovereign' in 1986 under Lange. Very sneaky and unannounced, the fox decided it owned the henhouse and those who knew, did & said nothing.
@@lizlambert NZ has been sovereign to the Crown since the early 1900s. We are an independent country so therefore the treaty is only a document to be held in good faith rather than law
correct. The Government of the day is the Crown. Parliament is where they meet with all other parties and their MP's. As the Crown is made of 3 coalition parties. Mr Luxon, Seymour and Peters (in no particular order) are the leaders of the parties that are government, at this time. 2 of them are Maori, and Ministers of the Crown. That make them incredibly well qualified. Maori, Crown. Who were the signatories of the Treaty? Maori and Crown.
David Seymour is right, a divided people in a country will not stand. Let all people of New Zealand decide how the country is run, and not these small minorities claiming to be the voice of all New Zealanders. We live in a democracy not a dictatorship.
All of the people in NZ can decide how the country is run. Not all of the people in NZ have a say on Te Tiriti o Waitangi though, simply because not all the people in NZ were signatories of the treaty. Simple international law, the only people that can change a Treaty are the signatories, in the case of the Tiriti that's the Crown and Maori. To unilaterally (onesidedly) change a Treaty between two signatories would be undemocratic and probably illegal under contract law. Its certainly illegal under international treaty law.
This is a real debate big ups to you both but well done Jack on bringing up facts and logic rather then emotionally driven rhetoric this is where alot of woke tv presenters loose points and loose real people. The coalition DPs will not endorse passed 2nd reading i wish that our media and politicians would leave it alone its dead on the water but still they push and vouch which only creates more reactions and anger.
Well Jack wasn't so good on his FACTS! Has actually found the long lost draft of the treaty that Te Tiriti was derived from? No. He was referring to the rogue Freeman version which was created over the 3 months AFTER the signing of the Treaty. This was in flowery language he thought more suited to royalty. His version was 538 words and the original only 460. In the ADDITIONAL words was Estates, Forests and Fisheries ". And yes article 2 in this version refers to "the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof." HOWEVER, ALL other versions refer to 'the chiefs and the Tribes, and to all the people of New Zealand." These versions include;- The Littlewood treaty, locked away till re-discovered in 1989, and now locked away out of sight as is inconvenient to the current narrative. It is extremely likely it is the true Draft that the Williams used to create, Te Tiriti. A 1869 back translation "ordered by the legislative council and carried out by Mr T E Young of the Native Department. The 1920 translation by Sir Apirana Ngata, one of Maoridom's greatest leaders and very much an advocate for Maori, but even he knew the truth. Last but not least is the version by Sir Hugh Kawharu done at the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal and the official version they are meant to be referring to. It is very easy to think others have the facts if it suits your story. do the research and you will find otherwise.
@SteveBond-p5v I've done my rangahau thanks The Treaty should not not be rewritten to suit separatist agendas across race and divisive political agendas that will destroy our spiritual and ancestral relationship to live here as a people citizens both old and young know that this bill will hurt our tamariki more they are often ripped off and wronged by the system anyway. He moumou tangata he moumou oranga. It's a historical document nothing less. My people who did not sign knew that the British crown would invade and pilmigrage the land with the support of man it is a case of jealousy and hatred to work together and love thy neighbor.
19:00 - 23:35 if anyone just wants to watch 4 minutes of this 31 min interview because they don’t have the time, watch this. This part is key. In short, David Seymour’s Bill reinterprets article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi to his own definition. Jack reads both the English and Te Reo Māori versions of the Treaty. Te Tiriti promises Māori chieftains and people’s, and any descendants of them, Tino Rangatiratanga (self determination and governance) over their lands, estates, forests, fisheries and other properties. David Seymour says Tino Rangatiratanga SHOULD be meant for all of New Zealand. When Jack asks him what he thinks Tino Rangatiratanga does mean though, David Seymour says he does not know what it is or means. He deflects to say that no one does - inaccurate, again. The courts only debate on how it is applied in legislation today, not the definition. The definition was clear in the Lands Case of 1987 and also Ngāti Apa vs Attorney-General 2003 case. It’s also in our current Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which has been developed by the courts, Waitangi Tribunal, governments, and other key experts, and used by the Courts today. So, to be clear. A politician who does not know what Tino Rangatiratanga means, is using this Māori cultural word to create a version of it for his Bill based on what he thinks it should mean, without proper consultation with Māori. ….that’s rather colonial, isn’t it. Jack and David go back and forth on their moral high grounds here, and that’s all fine. Jack does bring up an important point that the Bill of Rights Act 1990 already protects individual freedoms, free expression, freedom from discrimination - though I wish he pressed more on this. What I think is important here to note what David Seymour’s Bill is trying to do. The Bill’s own Principles would be the applied interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi into legislation and our laws. ACT party’s approved definitions, developed without Māori consultation. It would replace our current Principles which have been developed over decades of debate from Māori, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Courts, and other experts. While Waitangi Tribunal, King’s Counsel and other experts have already come out publicly to say whats wrong with the Bill - this interview has shown part of it in plain sight. David Seymour shouldn’t be going near anything to do with the Treaty without a full understanding of what it means in the first place, and he shouldn’t be reusing a cultural term out of its cultural context when he doesn’t understand what it is either. That’s why we have experts. Now while that would seem rather reasonable to any person, David’s response to Jack’s excellent critique is an attempt to infantilise and demean Jack with “that’s a cute argument”. Interesting way to save face.
Thanks again Jack for bringing to the forefront many of the thing people need to hear. The bill should never be interpreted by Parliament, the courts are exactly the right place for that to happen. If people don't like it, it does not in any way change the principles of the treaty/Te Tiriti. Seymour might as well introduce a new bill to nullify the treaty for all this current bill is worth. Toitū te Tiriti!
Seymour talking about TE REO . He forgets that it was the pakeha government during the late 1950s , 60s and 70s that abolished the speaking and teaching of te reo in schools and now he is. mocking the lack of fluent REO speakers that kind of talk is degrading to Māori but then Seymour is a plastic Māori who doesn’t care what he says about Māori
@Negaah21 please tell me your comment is a joke. And you want people to have a laugh. I mean if you seriously believe your comment, then there's just no hope for you.
Who's the radical? I mean good god just listen to yourself. 50 years of slow deliberate, moderate bi-partisan efforts, and thoughtful law making about to be thrown away because one unqualified lipless moron funded by multinational corporations decided he knows better.
David Seymour is very articulate and certainly was clearer bin his explanations That Jack even tried to Introduce Canada as an example of successful bi culturalism defies belief - he has obviously no understanding of the horrors that the Canadian indigenous people experience on a Reservation.
? I don't know about Australia. But I know here in the US and goes for Canada as well the system works. Yes it has its flaws but being a sovereign gives legal leverage to protect our lands and people. And forces the governments to respect the treaties.
Using the examples of Finland and Canada are ridiculous because in those cases there is clear geographic separation where people can run their own show if they wish. That's not going to fly in NZ where we are mixed both geographically and by marriage. We are one people.
Jack needs to ask questions and let them be answered. If he interjects with his own answer to his own question then he should just say this is his position and not ask it as a question.
He wasn’t wrong though? Jack clearly stated the legitimate interpretations stated on the treaty and Davids purposefully misinterpreting it to suit the initiative of the bill which effectively will help Atlas strip and bypass cultural land laws to pave the way for off-shore mining, the reaping of this lands resources and so many other terrible things all for the purpose of financial gain and total control of Aotearoa by the crown. How many times do New Zealanders have to be presented with something that looks like it’ll be the right thing to vote for and enact, only to find out after it’s all said and done that we’ve been lied to for financial gain by rich people? He’s not letting this man spout bullshit through his teeth and regardless of how you feel, it’s the right bloody thing to do.
You've got to hand it to David Seymour,he's a gutsy bugger' he's standing his ground,you have to admire that,even against all odds🤔😉...especially the bloody woke N.Z. media😵
The courts are the best place to review contracts, not parliament. This bill is a pebble, representing an impending landslide of legislation to sell off more land and water assets to foreign interests at the cost of all NZers. If this government is concerned with providing housing, perhaps they can sell off some of their personal excess realty to enable more first-home buyers to own? Perhaps they could return to the concept of the Capital Gains tax? Perhaps they could limit landlords to owning no more than 2 properties? Perhaps they could introduce legislation that prevents NZ from being considered a tax haven for overseas investors? We’ve seen this type of government in NZ, enough times before to know that they don’t care about social policy: they only care about lining their own pockets and those of lobbyists and cronies. Gross.
The special treatment my family for was having over 600 acres of our land taken and corruptly put into a 99 year lease with a Farmer in the 1950s. Thats the only special treatment my whanau received.
@@overover.. I bet the people with a $1/year 99 year lease that can be renewed at the end of the term without the landlord’s consent, have done significantly better out of the arrangement.
This video highlights exactly why debate and clarification is needed. Without debate and clarity, this will go on frustrating generation after generation of New Zealanders.
Dude that likes to text and send vids to 13 year old girls, can’t even pronounce ‘Māori’ correctly.
I wonder if he thinks we can’t see through his paid shill work from the Atlas group that he worked for in Canada, trying to strip the rights of indigenous people to pump the oil and gas from the land, royalty free.
It’s impressive to see him sit up straight, when he doesn’t have a backbone.
The only reason Principles exist in the first place is because the government does not want to honor the treaty they signed.
Here is the clarification: The majority of Rangatira signed te Tiriti. They did not cede sovereignty to the crown nor give them permission to confiscate land, apply unequal rates, or breakup ownership of Maori land into individually owned blocks. Te Tiriti was authenticated by William Hobson. End of discussion.
@
‘Authenticated’
Bahahahaahhahahhahahahahaahhhahahhaahahhahahah
The Treaty has its own clarification written in black and white. The problem is the government don't like that clarification so they decided to come up with their own vague clarifications.
When you go on a one day course and think you know it all
The undeniable common sense of his message must be irritating to you
@overover.. ruclips.net/video/UfYRvJylA70/видео.htmlsi=CJ8F2fdcoYovBdQb 😂
@@mcchoirboy I know right. Jack Tame looks like he’s a year 10 student, physically and mentally
Seymour wants to take away Maori rights why is that a problem to pakeha
@@mynameis123456ishyeah a baby face assassin making an old political wannabe look so average! We must request this interview to be edited 😂🤣😂
I want to share more nuance to this debate, by analysing David Seymour’s opening statement from 2:32 to 5min. Read on if you’re interested.
- He quotes the Waitangi Tribunal said this bill tramples over all Māori. I can’t find a single source online that says this. He references their report, I can’t see that statement in their public report. So this is either a direct lie by him to coax people into his perception of the Waitangi Tribunal, or he’ll need to actually provide evidence of that. Waitangi tribunal’s report specifies where this Bill goes wrong, I’d recommend reading it for yourself and not hearing a politician twist it to their advantage.
- He uses previous policies as examples of how NZ is held back by ancestry alone. But doesn’t reference that these policies were attempts to redress historical grievances and meet our current Treaty Principles of Partnership and Protection. Painting this as solely a debate of ancestry is concerning and narrow-minded to the context of our country.
- He mentions it’s a problem to have to consult with Māori and to have to take differences in perspective into account - ironic considering he is advocating for equal rights. This is an example of why politicians call this Bill overly simplified. His version of equal rights doesn’t seem to take into account differences people have by culture, but rather, that we become one NZ. It’s also overly simplified because the concept of equality vs equity is well known to most now. Equality is that everyone has shared value, a basic concept everyone knows. Equity is ensuring that everyone, no matter your start in life, will have the same equal outcomes. What looks like privilege to some e.g. Treaty settlements, scholarship for Māori, health funding and prioritisation for Māori, are part of trying to create equitable outcomes and redressing historical grievances as recent as the 1970s. Our parents or grandparents generations. It’s an effort to help Māori who are on the lowest statistics for health, education, incarceration etc be given the same outcomes as non-Māori.
To add; the settlements allowed some Iwi like Ngāi Tahu to reinvest this money into their next generations and try and give them equitable outcomes e.g Māori scholarships, housing etc. Iwi organisations like this meet the Charity Tax bracket because of this. Some people will view this as a cultural privilege because they feel left out, but they are already born into and exist in a system that generally gave their grandparents, parents etc more support.
Why has this Bill become divisive? Several things are happening here that’s causing an unnecessary racial divide, stoked by the manner of which this Bill has come about.
There are processes in place to protect Māori rights and Crown-Māori relations e.g the Principles in the judicial system, the Waitangi tribunal. Their interpretations aren’t legislated, which keeps it adaptable and evolving to NZ across the decades. It’s in the Spirit of the Treaty.
Along comes this government who repeals Te Aka Whai Ora, an organisation established o address disparities in Māori health outcomes, which pushes against equity. It attempted to rewound the use of te reo Māori in public service, which anyone who has been alive for more than a decade and been in Public Service, knows has been a huge help in gaining Māori trust back into government. This naturally feels like the government is going backwards on Māori, raising concerns.
Then David Seymour drafts his own Bill with his own definitions that reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi and how it will be legislated. Without consultation of Māori who are a signatory of that same Treaty. Without proper expert evidence or policy either. Ignoring decades of hundreds of lawyers, courts, Waitangi Tribunal etc advice, in fact, demeaning them as less than his own intelligence. You know. As a politician. And what does parliament do? It allows the Bill to be introduced to parliament as part of their coalition deal.
That is such a huge slap to Crown-Māori relations in the last 50 years, to generations of people who protested, suffered, endured, learned how to come back to the table and work together and figure out a way moving forward together.
That is why the Haka in parliament, as a challenge to this government’s irreverence. That is why the Hikoi saw tens of thousands of people. That’s why Māori, and other indigenous people are aggrieved (and for people who aren’t aware, indigenous people are cultures that existed pre-colonisation by the British Empire, as defined by the United Nations, which includes Māori, AND the Moriori who are indigenous to Chatham Island and Pitt Island - I recommend reading Moriori descendent Maui Solomon’s piece on Moriori: Still Setting the Record Straight as well.)
What we have is a politician who knows how to speak and present himself in a way to lull you into feeling this is all quite reasonable. Please, don’t fall for this. A politician is a politician.
I am also a critic of the left; before anyone assumes my own politics based on this. My intention is just to spread more awareness and context that’s coming behind this Bill.
I do personally believe we should all have a debate, but not a referendum yet; and I agree the Bill shouldn’t be passed. NZ is a young country still figuring out its identity and values. My hope is that we can figure out a way forward that has equitable outcomes for us all, that we come to a place where culture IS protected and can’t be threatened by the government of the day.
Otherwise, this country is on the fast track of looking A LOT like America.
I agree. Imaginary enemies is a tired narcissistic trick. Politicians do it in other countries, too when cornered.
If anyone is also interested on the key demographic David Seymour talks to; a recent article by Craig Ashworth, a Local Democracy Reporter from Taranaki, was at a small event where David Seymour was speaking a few days ago.
The article ‘ACT’s David Seymour won’t ’bow down’ to his hāpu leader’ has a sensational title, but the rest of the article is good.
People at this event said about Māori “they are like seagulls, if you feed them, more come and they start crapping on you” “there’s a self serving reinterpretation of the Treaty to benefit the Māori elite” “before Pakeha bought colonisation and war, Māori were killing each other anyway” and more on what percentage of Māori ancestry should count, and Māori organisations with charity tax status should be investigated.
This audience was predominantly over 60 and applauded the loudest during Seymour’s speech, on the government cutting 6000 public servant roles - you know, some of the same people without jobs to support their families, who helped NZ through Covid, who helped support our healthcare system and others.
Efficiencies need to happen? Of course.
Applauding for 6000 people losing their jobs and affecting 6000 kiwi families?
Yeah. Yeah no.
Now. It’s important to note from this article that David Seymour did not say any of this. He just decided to speak to these people in a small gathering. But, when David Seymour’s iwi Ngāti Rēhia came out to support the Hikoi and that they oppose the Bill, iwi leaders met with Seymour in person that they have serious concerns that this Bill will hurt our people.
As an aside, it already has.
But Seymour went on to disregard them, with polite contempt, saying ‘if being Māori means I have to bow down and follow leadership, then that’s not a very attractive proposition’.
Again, twisting what Ngāti Rēhia actually said and came to him with. Like a politician does.
So, a reminder to everyone. When you hear David Seymour politely and ‘reasonably’ discussing equal rights or what his evidence is to the majority of NZ’ers, remember that he is a politician who knows the game.
Agreed on all counts-thank you for the analysis and breakdown. And, yes: you do NOT want to end up like America. Full stop.
Thankyou for your breakdown. 🥰
Dude, such a good comment. Well said.
Well done Jack.
David, I respect you more after this interview. Your patience and professionalism is superb. You have shown your knowledge and belief for equal human rights👏
you're delusional db
Interesting fact... NZ has signed Free Trade Agreements that have specific clauses that protect NZ. They are Treaty of Waitangi clauses that allow Maori rights of consultation and limit the ability of international corporates to control our country. See what DS is up too for his overseas mates.
Exactly, it's the ATLAS NETWORK
Yep, money talks.
This is it, corporations have the rights of an individual in crown law.
In section 6 of the bill it explicitly states that prosecution under the law set out by this bill does not have jurisdiction over the settlements of land claims under the Treaty of Waitangi act 1975, and yes, the decisions of the waitangi tribunal. Do you still feel confident about alleging international treachery and collusion with foreign adversaries after literally not reading the bill and being dead wrong?
Thank you Jack Tame yet again I am highly appreciative of your work. Helps me as a māori with limited understand get a better grasp on the conversation. Love your passion for truth.
Jackie Boy is a woke joke who pushes the Maori line because it is the gift that keeps on giving, he will always be sure to find some descent to push for his bosses, he is just a biased little stooge. I am sorry for you being ''a Maori with limited understanding'' but you will never get the whole story relying on people like Jackie Boy to give you the facts.
WOKE INTERVIEWER EMPLOYING STANDARD WOKE INTERRUPTION TACTIC YAWN ZZZ
Well argued from both sides. I agree with David that we want to work as one to ensure our values are maintained and upheld but revising the treaty principals is not the avenue to do this in my opinion. The treaty was clearly in agreement / contract between the crown and Māori and therefore the principals should be left and interpreted as is. Great debate and a discussion well over due.
I agree
Lol, Seymour was caught out on nearly a lie every 3 minutes. How is lying "well argued"????
Someone had to bring it up someone had to have the conversation. The country is sadly divided. You can't have different rights for one person And different rights for another. It doesn't work. Look at other countries that are fighting. Why can't I have the same rights as you
And you lost...
@MrGamerxpert And your racist
@@itsjustweard2328 You're*
What a useless interviewer... asks questions on top of questions and cuts off every answer
You have to be deaf dumb or blind if you’re unable to see that DS is manipulating the way we look at the treaty and race relations in nz.
He’s a clever man. I mean you’d have to be if you’re affiliated with atlas network, an organisation comprised of people with the knowledge and power to strip and bypass cultural land laws held by indigenous peoples the world over for the purpose of financial gain by means of mining, reaping natural resources and many other questionable acts. But you already knew all that.
Look at what the big high corporate have done like rio tinto..mining and what did the people get..nothing..poverty ..same as here in Australia until the Aborigine went to courts etc there lands were reclaimed...
21:00 Jack puts the mirror up to David, the English text of Article 2 and now David wants to run with his interpretation of Maori text. Again David, what are you? Maori or Crown? The key issue is that David has run a unilateral process to write this bill. The Treaty of Waitangi established a partnership between Māori and the Crown based on mutual respect and good faith. Defining Treaty principles unilaterally breaches this partnership and contravenes the Crown's obligation to act in consultation and collaboration with Māori. The lack of meaningful engagement with Māori violates the principle of rangatiratanga. Furthermore, consultation is not a courtesy but a requirement under the Treaty and this process appears dismissive of Māori voices, undermining the legitimacy of the proposed legislation.
Well spoken
Nah mate
I don’t see the word partnership in the treaty, it ain’t there. Māori ceded the ability to govern, plain and simple. They wanted law and order and a better future, which is what they got. Radical minority of Maori now trying to dishonour the treaty, to renege on it. It ain’t gonna happen. Māori have no more right to this land than any other citizen. Māori aren’t indigenous, they pitched up here on a boat from from somewhere else, just as the British did.
The Treaty doesn't state a partnership between Maori and the Crown. That was a poor interpretation by a judge during a ruling of a case in 1987. Partnership was never the agreement. If that was the case, Maori chiefs should've negotiated for a protectorate with the British.
Bill is flimsy and misleading. Was it written by school children? It is self righteous virtue signaling shallowly knowledged Bull Kaka.
If you care about equality of rights and responsibility... all who support the Bill need to do a couple important things first.
Over 26,000 Hectares of Maori Land locked in perpetual leases right now. Maori owners not allowed to charge Fair market rates and make a Fair income for over 100 years.
Thousands of acres of Maori Land on 99 year leases. Many not paying a Fair lease rate (many not paying anything) for decades now, which is reason enough to break lease. Some say 'but look at the improvements I have made' but you haven't paid a Fair Lease fee for decades, viewing it just as 'Maori Land'. Take the buildings and move onto other Land where you get Free or extremely low lease rates.
Fair Treatment? Equality? These Lease agreements are modern day scamming and theft over a span of 50,60,70,80,90,100 plus years.
Until these unequal Treatment of Maori get rectified, all who support the Bill are HYPOCRITES ❤
Our fundamental human rights are protected under the Human Rights Act 1993 and the Bill of Rights Act 1990. It's not the treaty's job to do that. The treaty is a contract between nations based on the same concept the UK was founded on ( in their case a treaty between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England). I think we'd all agree that Scottish people desiring a certain level of autonomy as a separate identity and culture to the English isn't a controversial or negative thing, and that forcing "equality and unity" with England by making the Scots abolish their parliament wouldn't be a cute idea. Same principles apply here.
I agree!
JACK TAME SAID U ARE Maori an i am not so why is he so biase
They are their own countries, NZ is one country with two people
Plus Maori are not Indigenous they came here in canoes
@@Kereru the human rights act and BoR are unfortunately very weak and were not enforced during Covid years.
When the going gets tough, those rights get thrown out.
As an Australian, I can assure you that a treaty between the Crown and the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people is an idea they can only dream of. They are the most disadvantaged group in society by community standards and not having a treaty in place has had a devastating effect. The Maori are leading the way by international standards when it comes to first nations people having self-determination and land rights protection. That is something to be proud of. Te tiriti o waitangi must be protected at all costs. Kia Kaha ✊
Kia ora! 👍🏼🙌🏼
Wow Thank you for highlighting this.
The Mabo case which established allodial land rights for Torres Strait Islanders was judged using the same Law of equal rights to all as Mr Seymour is talking about.
Mabo is a decision that has been used to establish land rights of peoples at the time of European contact in NZ as well.
I'm wavering on support now and prefer NZ First position
Remove all references to TOW out of parliament made law
Id love to see a case taken by South Islanders against Ngai Tahu - who never signed the ToW btw
The Maori and aboriginal story are not the same.
Moari are the worst!
One country one rule, one service, no discrimination. That’s the good idea. One law for everyone that’s brilliant idea.
@@RaewynTairi That was the original intention of the treaty, but given that no one can interpret it accurately that's never been the case. I think if the "experts" can't interpret it, then it may as well go to a public referendum.
It's never been like that@@RaewynTairi
@rldrld7747 the experts can interpret te tiriti seymour cant. Why because he can't speak te reo. Tino rangatiratanga means self determination, sovereignty, independence autonomy. The term it's self is rooted in Maori world view, and there is no one english term that encapsulates it's meaning It doesn't mean goverance like seymour tries to make out it does
@@leetawhara7103 yes your right. There's always been discrimination toward Maori, and it's always been one rule at the advantage of pakeha
@@RaewynTairi Baseless racist claims, the Maori didnt havea world view, they had no concept of the world. You were stone age people, It is your language that lacks complexity and nuance. Stop romanticising the past.
I DEMAND A REFERENDUM ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY OF UNION. Because I am a Foreign Libertarian Lobby Group and they let me.
@@Go_Home_British_Raj No Referendum. Maori Culture matters, and the likes of you must not be allowed to wipe your arse with a treaty that Maori people died tooth and nail, with their blood to defend.
@@DavidWalter-gz8ue its sarcasm, go home is against
as your name say ..GO-Home_British_Raj
2 Words for all of you to look up: Atlas Network
do you get cheap electricity from them?
@colonelfustercluck486 nah but you can order your mum for a night
And another word for you and just one word - Blackrock
@@Garh1972 false and wrong. More ties to Seymour and that Atlas Network than anything to do with Blackrock fam.
Anyone who has read the Treaty (both English and contemporary Māori translation) would know that the principles (particularly principle 2) are fundamentally different to what was signed. The main distinction being that the Bill restricts Māori claims to their lands, waters, forestry etc to those that were settled in Treaty settlements.
Basically this is saying "We already said we were sorry for colonising you, but now that 80% of people are non-Māori and 90% of land is not owned by Māori we're going to just forget about our colonial history (And all of the horrific transgressions of the 20th century)."
I'm confident that the majority of people in support of this Bill have a nil understanding of New Zealand's history and how we got to where we are at now.
No, you are imposing your own viewpoint and assumption.
This bill isn't trying to discard moari owned land or moari significants in this country, it's saying that all people in this country are equal. History does indeed say that moari were disadvantaged and hard done by in some respects, but what history doesn't say is that giving different races different rights over one another is a successful endeavor. I believe that the treaty was definitely aimed at protecting maori, especially from foreign powers like France and Spain, but what the treaty intended, just like any other treaty around the world, was to recognize and agree on fundamental human rights and to give everyone a say. That's what the treaty propose was.
@@christiancatchpole6614 If your understanding of history is limited to the signing of the Treaty then I don't think I can help you
@@SamuelRoper-u5d the treaty was a testament to fundamental human rights, just like all treatys. It advocates peace and fairness, and if you can't see that, well then you should perhaps acctuelly pick up a history book and acctuelly read it. The things you say sound like nothing from a history book or anything. So no, I don't 'need you help' at all, in fact I think help is what you need, you clearly can't recognize or respect history.
@@galleonseas4206 How?
Fun fact: The petition against this bill got more votes (288,023) than the ACT party did in the last election (246,473).
Fun fact: millions of people voted in the election, the majority for parties other than ACT or TPM, who do support the principles Seymour sets out in this bill - meaning, one law for all. The ACT vote tally is neither here nor there.
Fun fact: two options will have a lot larger polarity than sixteen.
Good stuff Laura
@Laura
Fun fact Laura, Put the bill to a referendum and then see how many people vote *For* it.
Me no expert, but I suspect that it will garner 7 figures
It's not just Act voters that support it 46% of New Zealanders do with 29% undecided.
I think Maybe other countries could look favourably on New Zealand because they have an actual treaty unlike Australia.
It’s actually a terrible premise to say “where has this successfully worked” to put the burden of evidence on the people who actually haven’t had their way of life introduced to a system is ridiculous. The question is where has a system like the treaty of waitangi ever been introduced? I agree that clarifying needs to happen but not by this man. Let’s actually ask where the agreement hasn’t been met and what we’re going to do to address with the people of the land. If you’re wanting to create a constitution then do that. Don’t go tampering with a previously agreed upon contract.
The question was about those agreements existence. David lied and said no country exists that have indigenous protections and was caught nicely in his lie. It was simply a display that the man has to lie to have any type of point, which means he has no coherent point in reality.
Still operating under the notion that 'might is right' and harnessing as many as possible as a show of power to drive this home.
Divisiveness is dumb - stop it.
@@Generative_Midi_he started it Maori didn't just wake up and decide to debate TToW with Politicians it's got nothing to do with them this is simple for us Maori who believe in contracts and TToW is one of them
There’s somewhere between 15-36000 Sami in Sweden. The Sami parliament is not sovereign, they are subservient to the Swedish Parliament. Sami people in Sweden don’t have co-governance nor are the Swedish govt forcing Sami culture and language onto the other 9m Swedes.
DO THEY HOLD A TREATY WITH SWEDEN
@ why would Sweden have a treaty with Sami, Sami and the ethnic Norse population have both been living side by side for thousands of years. Sami weren’t colonised.
That's why Sami attend the U.N with other indigenous people and are fighting through the U.N to have their lifestyles, culture and languages protected in the different countries they live in. The Sami are not sovereign because they're not allowed to be. In Northern Finland Sami reindeer herders are fighting forestry companies to try and keep their native forests, so that their reindeer will still have food. Apparently even white indigenous people have to fight to be treated equally under law. Of interest, Sami communities adopted the Maori concept of language nests to revitalise their own language dialects.
@ Sami languages are protected, what do you consider a Sami way of life, nomadic reindeer herding is not in any way economically sustainable. Sami who don’t herd reindeer live like every other Norwegian or Sweden. In Norway if the taxpayer didn’t subsidise reindeer herding the industry would have died out a long time ago.
Have you ever been to Finland? The entire country is a forest, around 75% of the country is forest. I’ve driven from the border with Norway to Helsinki, its forest the entire way.
I don’t know about Sweden since I live in Norway, at least 50% of Sami speak a Sami langage in Norway today, which is a far higher percentage than Māori who speak Māori. There’s about 10 different Sami languages spoken in Norway.
@ why should Sami be sovereign they haven’t lived there any longer then the ethnic Norse and Finnish populations they live amongst? They shouldn’t even be indigenous, they migrated from Siberia around the same time (or as much as 2000 years after, depending on source) as the Norse migrated north from Europe.
David is a weapon... He's on his way to a knighthood in 30 years if he keeps this up
He got wrecked on Article 2 though.
I think he is more of a tool than a weapon
i cant tell whether you're a racist or just an idiot?
More like a Dildo
Great stuff David 👏
The treaty is not an agreement between races, there wasn't a big giant referendum that all British and Maori citizens over the age of 18 took part in at the ballot box. The Crown is not a race of people. The Crown is a governing body that represents the British. Te Triti was signed between Rangatira (Maori leaders) and representatives of the Crown. It was an agreement between two groups of governing, sovereign bodies about who should govern what and how. David Seymour admits this without even realizing it @5:11.
Yes, Jack killed seymours dishonest arguments with this fact. That's why brother Willy was 100% correct calling seymour a liar in Parliament.
Ahh yes, I agree, we should do what our distant ancestors said to do, not what we think is right in a modern context. You know I think my neighbor has some good land I could colonies right about now, its what my ancestors did after all and that makes it right.
@@LauraTeAhoWhite The crown hasn't been a governing entity for NZ for a very long time. We are sovereign to the British Crown and the Treaty is no longer instrumental to the way in which the government governs us.. Basically it's non binding by law and can only be acted upon in good faith.
@rldrld7747 you are mistaken. Wherever the Treaty or the principles of the treaty are mentioned in a statute, the government is bound by those statutes. And wherever the treaty is mentioned in a Court of Appeal judgement, the government is bound by the courts decision. The most famous example of this is the Maori Council case they won against the Attorney General(1987), which not only stopped Roger Douglas selling the country down the toilet, it was the independent judicial body that expounded the treaty principles. As part of the legislature and one of the party's to the treaty, it is dishonest and treasonous of seymour to try and change NZ's constitution for his own interests.
Go live on a reserve
Seymour just say the Treaty is inconvenient to your interests
@16:38 He said some. The ones he mentioned are not the ones driving this. He started working on this well over a decade ago when he was in Canada with atlas network
What sort of interview is this? Interviewer asks a question, then immediately interrupts him as he's responding. Then asks a new question, interrupts again. Does this a few more times and then deliberately misinterprets what they mean to say. What is going on here?
Thank you I thought I was the only one with eyes and ears in this comment section 😂
This is what Jack does unless he’s interviewing anyone on the left. Watch his interview with Debbie. 🤦♀️
One of the most unprofessional interviewers, J can't seem to listen to and respect his speaker who is answering his question. A waste of time.
Wrong
Jack was doing what all good journalists should do. Fact check a politician in real time when they start lying.
Jack interrupts Seymour every minute of this interview, sometimes within seconds of asking him a question. David shows exceptional patience and dignity.
Yup he is very rude and arrogant
He’s sharp and ready . Seymour is teko gamon
David is a joke, it's not based on race or ancestry it's based on sovereign rights
David had plenty of time to bore us all to death with his repeated nonsense.
@@nica900 fun fact: David Seymour is Māori. Does that annoy you? - bet it does.
"When people get preferential treatment for long enough, equal treatment seems like discrimination."
-Thomas Sowell
I’m another with David.
Legacy media at its finest , give the guest the respect he deserves and let him explain , rather than asking question after question. Before he can finish the first one . How are we supposed to understand the bill if he can’t explain .
What do you mean? Seymour just said the same thing over and over again.
I don’t think David said anything varying from 9 scripted lines he kept repeating
David sounded like a broken record any way. Also, not hard to do a quick Google search and read the bill yourself
Seymour got caught lying over and over again. Deal with it.
It is frustrating having separate entities and the costs that come with it. This is a small budget nation, and if we are going to build it up to be better for everybody we just won't have the means if we are making separate entities. Unless those separate entities are self funded or funded by those who use them.
Great point, if we ever do go down a co-governace model or separate governments then those who want to be governed by one or the other then they should definitely pay for it.
The crown doesn't care about anybody, just the crown! NZ along with all other Commonwealth states keep them propped up! Wake up NZ Te Tiriti is that one thorn in their side preventing them from total domination!
No they will be funded by all land thieving colonizers
@@whenua1 give all of the stolen land back then
@@whenua1 Co-governance has existed since 1991 under Jim Bolger. It hasn't been a problem until Seymour manufactured a problem to pander to his racist voter base.
NZ. Parliament gvt. aka NSW Settlers Immigrant Parliament of the Wakefield Company residing in Wellington were not party nor signatory to Te Tiriti
David Seymour for future Prime Minister
You want to be lied to by your Prime Minister? Like he did in this interview and got caught out half a dozen ties AT LEAST????
Please tell me how these current principles of the treaty effect you in a negative way. Go:
It has affected me in the last 2 months.
I operate a small business in Auckland. We recently lost a government agency as a client to a Māori registered business. They had been our client for the previous 8 years.
The agency must give a percentage of their contracts by quota to Māori registered business.
This will be a big impact on myself and my family as replacing a client like this is hard in this market. It will be even harder given that any future proposals will be up against this same quota system favouring Māori businesses.
(Hopefully when you said current u meant the ones in place now)
Ok answer how the new bill will affect Māori negatively. If the current principles have no effect on people then changing them will not effect Maori
Ignoring the whole taking or wasting of non maori money aspect, the biggest one has to be partnership and participation. The need to have maori consult or get a cut and potentially veto nearly everything costs this country a ton in productivity and money
Read a history book.
@@SamuelRoper-u5d lol 'educate yourself' is the universal social media code for 'I have no real argument against what you're saying, but im too childish to admit it'
I'm more aware of the history than the majority of new zealanders....
but hey if you have a specific point you want to make, or book i should be reading then go for it
I live in Australia and guess what. David Seymour is right it doesn't work 😅
Australia and NZ can’t draw comparisons. One has a treaty and the other doesn’t.
that is the irony of Jack's question and David's opposition to Australia, USA, Canada as examples.
have actually adopted Seymour's more "we're all one people" approach after casting their indigenous aside. and Seymour clearly believes that hasn't been good
He said you were a "failed state". Are you a failed state?
As a Māori I certainly agree with Seymour. Us Māori have often been treated as though we need special privileges or treatment, but this mindset can hold us back. We are not inherently more deserving or less deserving than anyone else in our nation. Instead of focusing on being victims or relying on a narrative of unfairness, we need to take responsibility and address critical issues within our communities-such as improving health outcomes, reducing crime, and advancing education and employment opportunities. This victim mentality weakens us and prevents progress. It’s time to shift the focus to real solutions and empower ourselves to create lasting change.
Different heritages having different rights under law is an example of racism. This needs to be changed. We are one people. We are humankind.
Referendum cant be soon enough David Seymour 100 %
How very disingenuous, as expected. Note that there are no rights that individual citizens are getting, even in Seymour's words. On the right to be consulted - 'maybe not me, but the leaders of the hapu/runanga'... So the representatives of the group.
I fear that Seymour is failing to make a distinction between the rights of individuals and the rights of groups. It's not impossible to respect both. We in the West have a tendency to forget that radical individualism is not the only way to think.
Many cultures in the world with historical roots in a tribal or clan structure retain a belief that the group is more than the sum of its parts. The African concept of ubuntu works this way. Gaelic tanistry worked this way. The concepts of mana and tino rangatiratanga operate this way. The treaty doesn't give rights to individuals. It establishes the basis of the relationship between two peoples.
Te Tiriti was and is an agreement signed between groups of equal status. Those two groups still exist - they don't just go away because some of us want to pretend we're American. Seymour's insistence on reinterpreting it through a lens of western individualism is to ignore the way the other party to the document understand themselves and the world - which is just to repeat the mistakes that landed us in all the conflict in the first place.
Seymour's reaction to Tame crippling his 'interpretation' of tino rangatiratanga of calling it a 'cute argument' is really telling. He *wants* to translate it as 'self-determination' and equate that with the libertarian understanding of personal autonomy, rather than accepting that Maori understand it as a collective right to something more like sovereignty. So he wants to impose Western thought on Maori against their wishes in favour of the 'practicalities' of modern liberal democracy - except what he's describing isn't a modern liberal democracy. Modern liberal democracies understand that the rights of minorities (of any kind) have to be protected from the blunt instrument that is majority rule - almost always through the courts.
I feel Seymour is acting in good faith and fairly representing the views of many new Zealanders irrespective of their political philosophy, who share in common a belief in the inherent unfairness and unsustainability of any system which privileges one group of people more than other on the basis of ancestry. There is no way to reconcile democracy with two sovereigns cohabiting and co-governing. This is literally a recapitulation of apartheid and will lead to nothing good for the people of new Zealand, who are not a biculture, but rather a multiculture, and increasingly so every day. 160000 immigrants from the Philippines, India and China in the past year. Race and other identity features are incidental aspects of being citizens of a healthy democracy in which all people are enfranchised and nobody is more favored than the other.
Pfft! Good faith? Did we just watch the same clip? So what’s your understanding of good faith because he didn’t even consult with Maori representatives on this bill? He just skirted around the answer when Jack
asked him directly who was involved in writing this bill. And you do not speak for ‘many New Zealanders’ when you have no evidence of how many NZers are actually in favour of this bill. If I hung around in circles of people who only ever agreed with my view then I would be saying the same thing.
Also, please tell me how Maori are privileged because I look at every single negative statistic in this country and its Maori who hold that so called ‘privilege’. And why are you being so hysterical and bringing apartheid into the conversation? do you actually even know what that means? You seem to be reaching so hard to make an argument but it just comes off as, well, baseless and speculative. Please stop.
Seymour? Acting in good faith? What a joke!
@@CosmicCompassionQuest So there's a few things going on here that I think need highlighting .
1. I'm not going to touch the absurdity of the privilege claim, but I will note the parroting of Seymour's talking point about distinctions on the basis of ancestry. Indigenous populations everywhere are always based on ancestry. They have no choice but to define themselves in terms of ancestry because everything they have other than that has been taken from them. To try and imply that paying attention to that fact equates to some kind of divisiveness on the part of Maori is nothing but malicious political spin. The core promise of the treaty - even if you lay aside the sovereignty/tino rangatiratanga question (which you shouldn't) - is that the Crown guaranteed that Maori could stay Maori. What Seymour is arguing for is a rejection of that fundamental commitment.
2. The suggestion that there is no way to reconcile democracy with two sovereigns co-governing is simply false. That's what treaty arrangements are for. It's complex and difficult, but the framework for it is well established at this point. Seymour doesn't even actually make the argument that the co-governance doesn't work - he just argues that its inconvenient for business. All this consulting with the Maori about the use of land and natural resources that fall under their jurisdiction is awful!. We should be free to pillage as we wish! It's not like the Treaty promised Maori tino rangatiratanga over their lands - oh wait. That's exactly what Article 2 promises. Well we should just ignore that! For profit!
3. There is no suggestion of separations between races in the Treaty or in our society, so raising the spectre of apartheid is absurd. As noted the rights and responsibilities of Maori to collectively act as stewards of their ancestral home makes literally no difference at all to their rights as individuals. Article Three guarantees them, as individuals, all the ordinary rights of British citizens. We have equal rights as individuals. It's the group rights that are different, and even then its not a difference of possession, but of use. We don't have a need to defend our culture, land, or people, because we have all the power - but if we didn't we'd have the same 'extra' rights as Maori (unless our new overlords decided to be harsher than the Crown was).
4. Raising the increasingly multicultural nature of New Zealand is disingenuous again - new immigrants are new immigrants. They are not new indigenous peoples. They can join as citizens of the Crown and enjoy the same individual rights shared by us all under Article 3. Maori are different - they were here first. The Crown did sign the Treaty with them. To say Maori culture is no different than any other is to ignore that this is their homeland. It's to deny that any indigenous peoples have a right to claim a meaningful connection to their own land. Which is, again, to ignore the Treaty entirely.
5. Again, and this cannot be stressed enough, this is not and never has been about race. That is the way Seymour wants to frame it to get a rise out of people who get angry about race. This is about nations. It is about peoples. And it is about an enduring legal treaty between two peoples. To reiterate, the *only* reason that the Maori iwi and hapu are defined by ancestry is because Maori as a culture revere their ancestors. Whakapapa is a core cultural concept that is made all the more important because, as I've pointed out, our colonial ancestors took nearly everything else. They even tried for decades to stamp out the language and culture.
Seymour's argument is an attempt to impose Western european values on the Maori people without their consultation and against their wishes by appeal to a simple majority vote. And he's even bold enough to let us know that it's in the interest of smooth business operations. Well damn, it's just so inconvenient that these annoying people have a treaty that causes us legal headaches. Suppose we'll just have to rewrite it for them so they can't get in our way! And we'll wrap it up in a nice "freedom" bow so that everyone who's not Maori won't notice that that "freedom" doesn't include the freedom to be Maori.
Well there are individuals who benefit.
I recently lost a govt contract to a Māori registered business. The agency must allocate a percentage of their work to Māori businesses.
This had been my client for 10 years.
So this individual who owns this Māori business has benefited in what isn’t a free market
Equal rights under the law for all races, what a great fundamental way to govern any country
Bill is flimsy and misleading. Did school children write it. It's a smokescreen. They desperately want to drill for Oil and consulting with Iwi and Environmental groups is annoying. They couldn't even consult Iwi over the Treaty Bill.
But to accomplish that, you have to remove nga iwi Maori rights to have their treaty honoured.
Well how wrong is that? That in 2024 no matter what race, age or culture we can’t have equal rights.
@@shanedevlin6714 how dumb are you? The only special treatment my whanau has received is having over 600 acres of our family land stolen of us in the 1950s. Stop it with the self righteous virtue signaling shallowly knowledged Bull Kaka.
@@shanedevlin6714 So nobodies contracts would matter anymore? Sweet. Goodbye mortgage. Unless you're advocating that it's only contracts with nga iwi Maori which don't need to be honoured?
David Seymour is a calm intelligent well spoken man who encourages free ideas, speech and open discussion.
Te Pati Maori want only the speech that they agree with and want to close down anyone who has an alternate view.
Thanks David, You are saying what Most New Zealanders Know Already
David wins again - yes lets get this passed
Lol, most peopel don't consider being caught out in multiple lies in a few minutes as "winning". Unless it's the charlie sheen version.
David the only one keeping a level head in all these reporter interviews
Lying is keeping a level head? Cause Sweden does in fact exist and Australia is in fact not a failed state.
Wake me up once this nightmare is over, at that point let me know what the rules are.
The new rules won't have much to do with personal rights, they'll simply be to exploit the land for resources like never before -- expand quarries, mine the seabed, drill for oil and gas, expand into conservation land, don't worry so much about protecting freshwater quality. At least that's what's been greenlit so far.
I think the issue is not that Maori have different rights to everyone else, it’s the fact that Pakeha have the same rights as everyone that is not Maori.
False maori have seperate rights and funding regardless of your dna percentage , its called grifting
So your idea of separate rights would be something like if Maori do something wrong media have the right to say Maori, where as if a pakeha does something wrong the media has the right not to say pakeha. We both know thats been happening. Or Maori got paid out 2.1 billion for confiscated land, and landlords got paid out 2.9 billion. I could go on. But theres others i need to educate. Goodbye
@@gouldmcclay met someone last year (previous government) who was told they had to wait 6 months for a cancer operation, however if Maori 4 weeks to operation. This looked like separation of rights on race.
@@gouldmcclayand they should as indigenous people of the land. The treaty protects these rights, to just give it up because they have become a minority in population is ludicrous. This is colonialism in 2024.
@@MrMahazestar you don't know the treaty articles at all because Maori seeded sovereignty and they are not indigenous as some would have you believe they 2 were colonisers just ask the moriori
Keep up the good work David!!!!!!!!!
Seymour, you dropped your crown, King. 👑
I think self determination for Maori is important in order for them to continue uplifting and strengthening the unique culture whilst aiming for better health and educational outcomes. Just my opinion.
But Maori see government as the oppressor and responsible solution provider. They're not looking in the mirror to solve their own issues.
Sadly they are not capable of such achieving such outcomes, ..'uplifting and stenghthening' comes at a cost paid for by the taxpayer, neverending and ongoing...forever no doubt 'clipping the ticket' along the way, if they wish to do it under their own financial means then go for it...realistically it won't happen will it!...
@@peterh6211 We're taxpayers too.
2:08
‘According to Curia polling…’
Would that be the same Curia that’s part of the Taxpayer’s Union (not a union, made up of people who’d rather not pay tax) that itself is under the influence of the Atlas Network..?
Just asking.
Let's fight for another 200 years about which version of the treaty say's what FFS let's move on Jack, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL NEW ZEALANDERS
Are you specially inclined? This is not some ancient language no one knows, learn the treaty, or stfu because you don't know what you are talking about. Learn the difference between tangata tiriti and a kiwi.
What you mean is the majority gets to decide what rights an indigenous minority should have, and going on form, it will essential boil down to repression.
@nica900 minority, I'm maori gay and a kaumatua, I was brought up to be a victim until I realized what a sad life I was leading and others were succeeding, so guess what, I rolled up my sleeves, took personal responsibility, had a tangi for my victimhood, and became a success. Our family just finished our papakainga, our own money blood sweat and tears and planted an ecosystem on Maori land, our maori land. Everybody wins, you wanna cry about repression, that's not my whanau's reality.
@@nica900 indigenous? Really?
@@Tupunaforevereven worse that you throw what your ancestors fought for down the drain -
He admits that qualified academics and judges are not as qualified as he and a group of rich backers are to reinterpret a contract which even with a majority cannot overturn simply because it displeases them !! The sad part is ; they're playing the tune !!!
Go David 🙌 thanks for representing all Nz’ers
Interesting, Jack showing his true colours here!
Jack let David finish his answer - constantly interrupting when he tries to reply. You never do this when it’s involving certain ethnicities.
Fact checking a politician's lies in real time is the most important and fundamental job of a good journalist.
Probabl because he can see through seymours misleading lies
He's doing him a favour, every time David speaks he makes himself look more like an unhinged autist.
Jack literally did this to Debbie in the very next interview
Then Seymour should STOP LYING. And such silly, easily probable lies too. You know what the name is for someone who believes a PROVEN liar? Gullible.
Mana Maaori Motuhake!
Ka Ora Tonu Matou!
Ake Ake Ake!
❤️🔥❤️
Jack is arguing that other systems of indigenous relations work where it is patently obvious that they don’t work. I lived in Aus for 25 years, some in the outback, and I saw the terrible conditions aboriginals struggled with. Alcoholism, abuse, housing… it was appalling. The Waitangi Tribunal is not a court of any standing . It has been hijacked by Māori activists and used for their own ends. If you really want to be totally blunt, activists are trying to create a South African style apartied state. They want control and separation and they want the white government to pay for it.
Seek education.
@bobsmith that's clear to see thats exactly what they want. Give them an inch they take a yard. No PM has had the guts to stop this and it's getting out of hand
well said.. I'm glad someone else here sees this for what it is.
💯 and we are sleepwalking into apartheid. Nzs don't realise that a a two tiered system is exactly what the activists want and is what they're inching towards through the help of the nz public.
@@iosefaandrews2351 You're poorly educated. Seek help.
HT for allowing comments.
It was a helpful civilised discussion. People can be cute with words but one can't help feeling David's commonsense plan will win out in time. We can look forward to "one people, one law, one flag."
Hang on a minute Māori we’re moved from where they were living to another area because the white man wanted to build a town and a sea port where these Māori were living
I don’t have a position on this because I don’t understand it entirely but I do I think the mainstream media’s failure to present this bill objectively is not helping a) honest, open conversation about the actual facts of a complex issue and through their bias are b) creating more division in this country. Whether you agree or not, the fact remains Seymour represents a significant number of kiwis that are in favour of this bill and they can’t feel as though their position is demonised (even if it is in fact wrong). It’s forcing people to feel more emboldened in their position.
what is a significant number?
Both sides have been represented in mainstream media and David has had more than his fair share of air time including uninterrupted in parliament.
It is difficult to have an objective discussion when david is shamelessly putting a bunch of false statements out there
He represents racists and liars, as the comment section proves.
The treaty was between the crown and Maori.
It actually makes sense thanks david
David thanks for your informative, Factual, Respectful, Explanation . You have an amazing moral compass. You never resort too hate speech or name calling when trying to get your point across. Very refreshing to hear that from someone of your standing. Others could learn a thing or two from how you carry yourself even when faced with someone who doesn’t agree with them
Good interview, Jack. Showed how one-sided the bill is. It's all about what he thinks the treaty should look like in todays world & unilaterally altering the meaning of Treaty for his purposes.
Jack lost it when he mentioned Canada, Oz, and the USA, but he got back on track when he remembered Sweden. Then all seymour could do was first try and ignore that Sweden been mentioned. Then, when Jack pushed Sweden again, seymour couldn't ignore it and obviously just started lying by saying Sweden was not a good example of where recognising indigenous rights works. Good work, Jack, by nearly losing it and then quickly exposing seymour as a dishonest liar.
@@rhysrautjoki7207jack just chose the most obscure example knowing he probably wouldn’t be informed about them. If you look into it they have similar issues and is not a perfect system either as jack would want you to believe
@@mynameis123456ish NO! The people who get a say are the people(and their descendants, as stated in the contract) who signed the contract. Why is that so hard to understand?
@@rhysrautjoki7207 Lol, he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Seymour is a liar. They are NOT "failed states" like Seymour claimed and they DO in fact exist.
@@mynameis123456ish You aren't though. Simple.
So this is all about money, property, and power. Got it 👍..
For the govt
Yes' let's face it,it's all about lining their pockets and feathering one's own nest❗
since the beginning
Bill is a smokescreen. They desperately want to drill for Oil and sell assets. Consulting with iwi and Environmental groups is annoying. Couldn't even consult Iwi over the Treaty Bill.
A simple mind I see
NZ has more people now but ..if you own or were left a large amount of land ..why should that go to the govt to build for people who do not have a connection to your family.
What are the treaty principles
Well spoken,no thought in what u say
I'm pakeha and am with a Maori partner, split by race is decisive, Maori should not lose anything the have set in the agreement, if this continues it gives some Maori the self entitlement you hear used when committing crime(bad decisions) jack is a typical pakeha scared to push forward for every new zealander rather than just Maori, you could go on for days, I didn't vote for act and probably won't going forward but imagine if there was a pakeha party, it would be considered racist and there is already an element of that in parliament with the Maori party who previously were fair but under current leadership seem extremely racist to me.
Oh sorry I didn’t realise pakeha got colonised by Māori which would make having a party of pakeha for pakeha in government make sense
The pakeha party is basically every other party. lol
I wonder if you share these views with your partner. I feel sorry for those kids when their father has a clear bias against them.
You mention crime which is interesting because Māori are over represented in the prison system which doesn't exactly suggest they're getting special treatment now does it? Seymour wants you to think this about equal rights, but the reality is we are all bound by the same laws and rules. In our day to day lives Tino Rangatiratanga just means Iwi consultation, which is effectively just one dimension of community consultation which NACT hate. Their real goal is to make us all equally powerless and voiceless and give multinational corporations carte blanche to profit off our resources. That's why as a pakeha I support the treaty.
Brilliant interview Jack. Carved this muppet a new one👍👍
Parliament is NOT the Crown
We are no longer British subjects though we still belong to the commonwealth and 'the crown' is a Constitutional Monarchy that recognises the right of parliament to make laws.
Parliament very quietly made themselves 'sovereign' in 1986 under Lange. Very sneaky and unannounced, the fox decided it owned the henhouse and those who knew, did & said nothing.
😂 wake up retard
@@lizlambert NZ has been sovereign to the Crown since the early 1900s. We are an independent country so therefore the treaty is only a document to be held in good faith rather than law
correct. The Government of the day is the Crown. Parliament is where they meet with all other parties and their MP's. As the Crown is made of 3 coalition parties.
Mr Luxon, Seymour and Peters (in no particular order) are the leaders of the parties that are government, at this time.
2 of them are Maori, and Ministers of the Crown. That make them incredibly well qualified.
Maori, Crown. Who were the signatories of the Treaty? Maori and Crown.
For the next 6 months every citizen gets to contribute their opinions and whether they’re in favour or not.
David Seymour is right, a divided people in a country will not stand. Let all people of New Zealand decide how the country is run, and not these small minorities claiming to be the voice of all New Zealanders. We live in a democracy not a dictatorship.
So what you are saying is...Let us all be WHITE!!!
Well he certainly has divided the people, good and proper.
He talks like a Dictator.
All of the people in NZ can decide how the country is run. Not all of the people in NZ have a say on Te Tiriti o Waitangi though, simply because not all the people in NZ were signatories of the treaty. Simple international law, the only people that can change a Treaty are the signatories, in the case of the Tiriti that's the Crown and Maori. To unilaterally (onesidedly) change a Treaty between two signatories would be undemocratic and probably illegal under contract law. Its certainly illegal under international treaty law.
Isn't ACT a minority in Govt telling the majority he is right?
This is a real debate big ups to you both but well done Jack on bringing up facts and logic rather then emotionally driven rhetoric this is where alot of woke tv presenters loose points and loose real people. The coalition DPs will not endorse passed 2nd reading i wish that our media and politicians would leave it alone its dead on the water but still they push and vouch which only creates more reactions and anger.
Well Jack wasn't so good on his FACTS! Has actually found the long lost draft of the treaty that Te Tiriti was derived from? No. He was referring to the rogue Freeman version which was created over the 3 months AFTER the signing of the Treaty. This was in flowery language he thought more suited to royalty. His version was 538 words and the original only 460. In the ADDITIONAL words was Estates, Forests and Fisheries ". And yes article 2 in this version refers to "the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof."
HOWEVER, ALL other versions refer to 'the chiefs and the Tribes, and to all the people of New Zealand." These versions include;- The Littlewood treaty, locked away till re-discovered in 1989, and now locked away out of sight as is inconvenient to the current narrative. It is extremely likely it is the true Draft that the Williams used to create, Te Tiriti.
A 1869 back translation "ordered by the legislative council and carried out by Mr T E Young of the Native Department.
The 1920 translation by Sir Apirana Ngata, one of Maoridom's greatest leaders and very much an advocate for Maori, but even he knew the truth.
Last but not least is the version by Sir Hugh Kawharu done at the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal and the official version they are meant to be referring to.
It is very easy to think others have the facts if it suits your story. do the research and you will find otherwise.
@SteveBond-p5v I've done my rangahau thanks The Treaty should not not be rewritten to suit separatist agendas across race and divisive political agendas that will destroy our spiritual and ancestral relationship to live here as a people citizens both old and young know that this bill will hurt our tamariki more they are often ripped off and wronged by the system anyway. He moumou tangata he moumou oranga. It's a historical document nothing less. My people who did not sign knew that the British crown would invade and pilmigrage the land with the support of man it is a case of jealousy and hatred to work together and love thy neighbor.
19:00 - 23:35 if anyone just wants to watch 4 minutes of this 31 min interview because they don’t have the time, watch this. This part is key.
In short, David Seymour’s Bill reinterprets article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi to his own definition.
Jack reads both the English and Te Reo Māori versions of the Treaty. Te Tiriti promises Māori chieftains and people’s, and any descendants of them, Tino Rangatiratanga (self determination and governance) over their lands, estates, forests, fisheries and other properties.
David Seymour says Tino Rangatiratanga SHOULD be meant for all of New Zealand. When Jack asks him what he thinks Tino Rangatiratanga does mean though, David Seymour says he does not know what it is or means.
He deflects to say that no one does - inaccurate, again. The courts only debate on how it is applied in legislation today, not the definition. The definition was clear in the Lands Case of 1987 and also Ngāti Apa vs Attorney-General 2003 case. It’s also in our current Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which has been developed by the courts, Waitangi Tribunal, governments, and other key experts, and used by the Courts today.
So, to be clear. A politician who does not know what Tino Rangatiratanga means, is using this Māori cultural word to create a version of it for his Bill based on what he thinks it should mean, without proper consultation with Māori.
….that’s rather colonial, isn’t it.
Jack and David go back and forth on their moral high grounds here, and that’s all fine. Jack does bring up an important point that the Bill of Rights Act 1990 already protects individual freedoms, free expression, freedom from discrimination - though I wish he pressed more on this.
What I think is important here to note what David Seymour’s Bill is trying to do. The Bill’s own Principles would be the applied interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi into legislation and our laws. ACT party’s approved definitions, developed without Māori consultation. It would replace our current Principles which have been developed over decades of debate from Māori, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Courts, and other experts.
While Waitangi Tribunal, King’s Counsel and other experts have already come out publicly to say whats wrong with the Bill - this interview has shown part of it in plain sight.
David Seymour shouldn’t be going near anything to do with the Treaty without a full understanding of what it means in the first place, and he shouldn’t be reusing a cultural term out of its cultural context when he doesn’t understand what it is either. That’s why we have experts.
Now while that would seem rather reasonable to any person, David’s response to Jack’s excellent critique is an attempt to infantilise and demean Jack with “that’s a cute argument”.
Interesting way to save face.
Best honest comment. Thank you
We love David. More power to him
Your a separatist
Article 2 in Te tiriti actually mentions all the people of NZ.
Can u explain to me how tino rangatiratanga mean that Māori should get 50% control of water assets that everyone paid for?
Thanks again Jack for bringing to the forefront many of the thing people need to hear. The bill should never be interpreted by Parliament, the courts are exactly the right place for that to happen. If people don't like it, it does not in any way change the principles of the treaty/Te Tiriti. Seymour might as well introduce a new bill to nullify the treaty for all this current bill is worth. Toitū te Tiriti!
Appreciate jack for being unbiased for once...then drilling Debbie...
Seymour talking about TE REO . He forgets that it was the pakeha government during the late 1950s , 60s and 70s that abolished the speaking and teaching of te reo in schools and now he is. mocking the lack of fluent REO speakers that kind of talk is degrading to Māori but then Seymour is a plastic Māori who doesn’t care what he says about Māori
good typical interview of tame's; reasoned and logical responses from Seymour...
David just makes sense. The radical academics, judges, and elites Māori are in discomfort with this bill as it shakes off their grifting existence.
Negaah.
You're full of it! Lies!
@Negaah21 please tell me your comment is a joke. And you want people to have a laugh. I mean if you seriously believe your comment, then there's just no hope for you.
Who's the radical? I mean good god just listen to yourself. 50 years of slow deliberate, moderate bi-partisan efforts, and thoughtful law making about to be thrown away because one unqualified lipless moron funded by multinational corporations decided he knows better.
Its a partnership between the crown an maori...THE CROWN AN MAORI
And David is a member of both groups
But just some Maori aye?
David Seymour is very articulate and certainly was clearer bin his explanations That Jack even tried to
Introduce Canada as an example of successful bi culturalism defies belief - he has obviously no understanding of the horrors that the Canadian indigenous people experience on a Reservation.
❤❤❤ Act Party
Indigenous rights for Indigenous people is apparently controversial... for the 8%.
Great work, Jack, someone finally asking him the questions I've been wanting to hear him address for ages
… been living under a rock bro?😂
@johnleonard3959 Something like that
Yeah don't give in to his word salad.
I’m actually laughing because USA, Canada, Australia HAVE FAILED. Those people are actually failing in their countries. What a clown interviewer
which is the point of why jack brought it up. hilarious reading how so many of you don't grasp this at all
? I don't know about Australia. But I know here in the US and goes for Canada as well the system works. Yes it has its flaws but being a sovereign gives legal leverage to protect our lands and people. And forces the governments to respect the treaties.
Well done, David Seymour!!!
Using the examples of Finland and Canada are ridiculous because in those cases there is clear geographic separation where people can run their own show if they wish. That's not going to fly in NZ where we are mixed both geographically and by marriage.
We are one people.
Seymour lied saying they're failed states or don't exist. Seymour should stop lying.
Jack needs to ask questions and let them be answered. If he interjects with his own answer to his own question then he should just say this is his position and not ask it as a question.
He wasn’t wrong though? Jack clearly stated the legitimate interpretations stated on the treaty and Davids purposefully misinterpreting it to suit the initiative of the bill which effectively will help Atlas strip and bypass cultural land laws to pave the way for off-shore mining, the reaping of this lands resources and so many other terrible things all for the purpose of financial gain and total control of Aotearoa by the crown.
How many times do New Zealanders have to be presented with something that looks like it’ll be the right thing to vote for and enact, only to find out after it’s all said and done that we’ve been lied to for financial gain by rich people?
He’s not letting this man spout bullshit through his teeth and regardless of how you feel, it’s the right bloody thing to do.
Seymour needs to stop lying
You've got to hand it to David Seymour,he's a gutsy bugger' he's standing his ground,you have to admire that,even against all odds🤔😉...especially the bloody woke N.Z. media😵
Well done - if you don't agree or you are living in the past, it's WOKE! So handy to have a label to make sure you are right.
Go Woke🥺 Go Broke😉
The courts are the best place to review contracts, not parliament.
This bill is a pebble, representing an impending landslide of legislation to sell off more land and water assets to foreign interests at the cost of all NZers.
If this government is concerned with providing housing, perhaps they can sell off some of their personal excess realty to enable more first-home buyers to own?
Perhaps they could return to the concept of the Capital Gains tax?
Perhaps they could limit landlords to owning no more than 2 properties?
Perhaps they could introduce legislation that prevents NZ from being considered a tax haven for overseas investors?
We’ve seen this type of government in NZ, enough times before to know that they don’t care about social policy: they only care about lining their own pockets and those of lobbyists and cronies. Gross.
Well said!
Tame acts like an interrogator rather than a journalist
You have to when dealing with Politicians.
Then Seymour should stop lying.
There should be no special privileges for one race over another. Equal rights for all New Zealanders are fundamental for a fair and just society.
Why did you make this statement
@@Ced_GT give Maori their land back first
You should be embarrassed with that statement ... I would remove it if I were you ...
Bill is self righteous virtue signaling shallowly knowledged Bull Kaka.
Maori get treated unfairly by the laws of NZ, not you.
The special treatment my family for was having over 600 acres of our land taken and corruptly put into a 99 year lease with a Farmer in the 1950s. Thats the only special treatment my whanau received.
I bet one of your ancestors did very well out of this deal
@overover.. what? Our of having 600 acres of land stolen from them. How would they benefit brightspark?
@@overover..
I bet the people with a $1/year 99 year lease that can be renewed at the end of the term without the landlord’s consent, have done significantly better out of the arrangement.
@@SoBlissedOut Yes landlords are always getting screwed in this country
@@kiatupato182 How did your family land leave your hands?
I love your interviews Jack, love how you put seymour under the pump. Very well executed brother✊🏽☝🏽❤️🤍🖤🩵💛💚
Sea bed and foreshore court of appeal decision Native Title Unextinguished???🤪