September 15, 2024 • 11 mins
This week Cabinet discussed the draft for the Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by the ACT Party.
The three principles that were agreed upon included the Government power to govern and Parliament's power to create laws, the Crown's recognition of hapu and iwi rights, and the right to equality.
ACT Party Leader David Seymour joins Tim Beveridge on The Weekend Collective to discuss.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News talks'd be.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Cabinet discussed the draft for a Treaties Principle's Bill, and
as we know, introduced by the ACT Party. The three
principles that were agreed upon included the government's power to
government govern should I say, the Crown's recognition of Hapu
and ewe rights, and the right to equality. So although
the principles seem fairly straightforward, the bill continues to be
(00:34):
the center of ongoing controversy. This week gone, well, actually,
let's be honest, not just this week gone, but all
the time. So ACT Leader David Seymour joins me. Now,
good afternoon, Good afternoon too. Hey, just a quick question
to start with. What's the point of all this?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Well, there's two points. Number one is that it's about
time that we all had to say about our constitutional future.
For too long we've been told if you're not a
SOLF appointed expert, if you don't have the right view,
or even if you're not from the right background, then
you shouldn't be allowed to express a view because you'll
be called all sorts of things. It's time for that
to stop and actually recognize that each of us are human,
(01:15):
each of us in New Zealanders, and each of us
have a share in the future of this country and
we should be allowed to share our voice about it.
The second part is that there's lots of people who say,
you know, even if they except, you're allowed to have
of you that you know, we have to interpret the
treaty as a quote unquote partnership between races. Now, if
(01:37):
that is true, then your primary identify in this country
is racial And I just I actually get a little
bit sit of saying things like that because it's quite distasteful.
But that is where we've got to in this country,
and that The real challenge for people who oppose this
debate even happening is they need to tell us where
in the world has there been a successful society that
(02:00):
sets itself out as a partnership between races, Because there's
lots of armfuls where it's been a disaster, but the
council to point to any successful countries that have gone
down the path.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
In terms of your own journey on this have you
had there's a suggestion that the proposals of the three
clauses have sort of been watered down. Where are we
at with that.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Yeah, there's always going to be a very wide range
of views, and I think it's there to say that
the few people out there who say, we'll hang on
a minute. Why is the mention of Hapu and Ewi
in the proposed principles. It's basically because you do have
to recognize that it was signed by Harpo and Ewi
in order to protect their rights, and the treaty itself
(02:46):
does say that it will protect their rights, or at
least the Crown will, So the principles say that, but
they also say that those rights are the same rights
that everyone in New Zealand should expect, So it actually
reinforces that while Harpoo and Ewi signed up property rights
and self determination and be able to live their lives
(03:08):
as they see that, actually everyone should have those rights
and if there's going to be an exception, then the
government ought to say so with legislation or agreement. So
really what we're doing is saying, look, the government has
a right to govern yep Hapu and e we have
certain rights that are the same that everyone has, unless
the government wants to deliberately debate from that. And let's
(03:30):
face it, governments can so let's make it explicit. And thirdly,
all of us have the same rights and duties or
as the treaty says, not de kungkat.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Should we be concerned that national so staunchly against it
in terms of the discussion, And why is the PM
against I guess it's just unpalatable politically.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Well, I'm not going to speak for him, but all
I would say is that it's always taken a certain
amount of courage to bring these things up. And if
there's one reason I'm INACT and I'm not an ANT
and I'm not in any of the party, it's because
I've always admired you before I was involved in ACT,
the ability of the party to take on tough topics
(04:13):
where others feared to treat And I think it's important
that we're able to have these debates. If the gun
laws are wrong, we should say so. If euthanasia is
a desperate need for our most vulnerable citizens, we should
say so. If the COVID response is actually doing more
harm than good to some people, they should have a voice.
And if our treaty has been twisted over the past
(04:36):
fifty years by the courts and the wait Tangi tribunal
and so on in such a way that it's become divisive.
We should say so. And that's why I'm proud to
be act.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
If it actually came into law, what it actually what
would it actually change for Kiwis.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
It would allow Kiwis to say, yes, I'm proud to
be part of this country. Yes I'm proud of our treaty.
And actually we've had a national debate including everybody that
defines what it says, and it says that the government
can govern, we've all got certain rights, they are equal,
and that we are all equal before the law. And
I think being able to say that when you know
(05:13):
somebody is proposing that your organization should be split or
co governed, when somebody says that health care services should
be delivered along ethnic lines for treaty purposes, or that
some people should have more say over others when it
comes to resource management, having clear understanding where people can
stand up and so actually I agree with that it's
(05:34):
not necessary. Same with malor awards on councils for example.
You know, it's all about allowing people to say I
believe in universal human rights. I don't believe that the
treaty requires us to be split into a partnership between races.
Because it's never worked anywhere else, there's no reason to
think it would work here.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Why I guess I should form this as part make
a statement, as part of a question. Really, my observations
of this generally that with all the inflammatory sort of
threats about this is going to divide the country. I
just don't think New Zealanders a cut out to have
these sort of discussions. I think we're intellectually just sort
of either cowardly or childish.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
What do you think, Well, I think what you're seeing
at the moment is a group of people in academia
and the legal profession, the public service, in the media
who are not used to the greater wish being able
to have a say about these matters. But actually, I've
watched New Zealand have discussions at a very sophisticated and
(06:40):
civilized level, and I think we are capable of it.
We're being sort of double faked into being told that
we can't, and then of course they will pull out
that the occasional idiot who really has reprehensible views anti Maori,
anti Maori culture, ridiculing people for their culture. I'm just
not up for that, and overwhelmingly New Zealanders aren't. But
(07:04):
one thing I find is if I look online at
a comment section or something, or look at some of
the emails I get, and I just think, man, this
country has just lost the plot. And then I just
go out pick a street, knock on a few doors,
just talk to the first person that answers, ask them,
how do you think New Zealand's going, and what's important
(07:26):
to you? And is there anything the government can do better?
And all of a sudden, my faith is restored that actually,
this is a wonderful country and people are far more
capable of holding an opinion and expressing a constructive faith,
and we're given credit or by certain people in media.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Is there a way you could address the concerns that
you're talking about with that? I guess a lot of
people see it as tinkering with the sort of sacrisanct
nature of the treaty is I mean, I look at
those proposals. You've got, government has the power to government.
You recognize the rights of Hapu and Ewi when they
signed the treaty, and everyone's equal before the Lord. Doesn't
(08:04):
actually sound outrage to me, But I'm wondering if as
part of the trouble is that people they just see
this treaty is just don't tinker with that. Could you
have put this into a sort of separate piece of
legislation that's stood on its own, that didn't need to
be seen to be, you know, redrafting a historical document.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Well, I've heard that argument that there should be a
change to the Bill of Rights, and I don't think
it's entirely a bad one, but I also think we've
got to get rid of the historical and measure here.
The truth is that the Treaty has been said to
be a living document for the last fifty years. Parliament
said that there were principles. Maori Council went off to
(08:45):
the Court of Appeal to ask what they were. The
Court had a punt, had it why only tribunals built
a bit more onto that. The government departments have had
to go. At one point they even invented a fourth
article of the Treaty. And everyone says, oh, it's a
living document. It's a living document. I come along and say, okay, well,
I've got a few suggestions for how it could evolve.
(09:07):
Oh no, no, no, no, no, it's Sacris Act. You
can't possibly get involved, say what happened to the Living Document?
You know? So the idea that that's been Sacris Act
and no one's ever built on it, debated it, messed
with it ever before, and I'm the first one. Two, Well,
that's just not true. It's basically been debated since the
day it was signed, even the day before the fact
(09:31):
that for the last fifty years or so, a very
specific interpretation has grown up, and it's been a relatively
small group of people, lawyers, academics, public servants who have
decided what sort of constitutional framework our country should have.
I don't think that what I've come up with is
consistent with successful societies, and I don't think it's right
(09:54):
that such a small and narrow group of people should
get to define something so important to a country's future.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
So what's next.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Well, right now we're going to be drafting the sure
piece of legislation that gets introduced to Parliament. So what
people saw this week was a couple of paragraphs that
act as guidance for that drafting, and no more that
drafting will happen. We introduced to Parliament in November. There'll
be a first reading debate in the House, it'll be
(10:23):
referred off to a select committee. A select committee, we'll
seek submissions from the PUBLICA they say about what they think,
and then the select Committee will report back and at
that point other parties will have to decide A do
we want to have a vote on the Treaty Principles Bill?
And B if we do have a vote, how would
(10:45):
we like to vote? And that won't but that won't
happen until next May.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Excellent. Hey, thanks for so much for your time. David
really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
No worries, so thanks for having me on the show.
Good on ya.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
That is David Simmer, of course, the leader of the
ACT Party. I'm going to say, I just I just
I think there's so much inflammation stuff there that's reflected
of course or on the of course in the media.
I don't know we're going to take new calls on this,
but I don't find any of it particularly objectionable. But
there might be something that I don't get. If you
want to inform me on the era of my ways.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news
Talks it'd be weekends from three pm or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio,
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News talks'd be.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Cabinet discussed the draft for a Treaties Principle's Bill, and
as we know, introduced by the ACT Party. The three
principles that were agreed upon included the government's power to
government govern should I say, the Crown's recognition of Hapu
and ewe rights, and the right to equality. So although
the principles seem fairly straightforward, the bill continues to be
(00:34):
the center of ongoing controversy. This week gone, well, actually,
let's be honest, not just this week gone, but all
the time. So ACT Leader David Seymour joins me. Now,
good afternoon, Good afternoon too. Hey, just a quick question
to start with. What's the point of all this?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Well, there's two points. Number one is that it's about
time that we all had to say about our constitutional future.
For too long we've been told if you're not a
SOLF appointed expert, if you don't have the right view,
or even if you're not from the right background, then
you shouldn't be allowed to express a view because you'll
be called all sorts of things. It's time for that
to stop and actually recognize that each of us are human,
(01:15):
each of us in New Zealanders, and each of us
have a share in the future of this country and
we should be allowed to share our voice about it.
The second part is that there's lots of people who say,
you know, even if they except, you're allowed to have
of you that you know, we have to interpret the
treaty as a quote unquote partnership between races. Now, if
(01:37):
that is true, then your primary identify in this country
is racial And I just I actually get a little
bit sit of saying things like that because it's quite distasteful.
But that is where we've got to in this country,
and that The real challenge for people who oppose this
debate even happening is they need to tell us where
in the world has there been a successful society that
(02:00):
sets itself out as a partnership between races, Because there's
lots of armfuls where it's been a disaster, but the
council to point to any successful countries that have gone
down the path.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
In terms of your own journey on this have you
had there's a suggestion that the proposals of the three
clauses have sort of been watered down. Where are we
at with that.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Yeah, there's always going to be a very wide range
of views, and I think it's there to say that
the few people out there who say, we'll hang on
a minute. Why is the mention of Hapu and Ewi
in the proposed principles. It's basically because you do have
to recognize that it was signed by Harpo and Ewi
in order to protect their rights, and the treaty itself
(02:46):
does say that it will protect their rights, or at
least the Crown will, So the principles say that, but
they also say that those rights are the same rights
that everyone in New Zealand should expect, So it actually
reinforces that while Harpoo and Ewi signed up property rights
and self determination and be able to live their lives
(03:08):
as they see that, actually everyone should have those rights
and if there's going to be an exception, then the
government ought to say so with legislation or agreement. So
really what we're doing is saying, look, the government has
a right to govern yep Hapu and e we have
certain rights that are the same that everyone has, unless
the government wants to deliberately debate from that. And let's
(03:30):
face it, governments can so let's make it explicit. And thirdly,
all of us have the same rights and duties or
as the treaty says, not de kungkat.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Should we be concerned that national so staunchly against it
in terms of the discussion, And why is the PM
against I guess it's just unpalatable politically.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Well, I'm not going to speak for him, but all
I would say is that it's always taken a certain
amount of courage to bring these things up. And if
there's one reason I'm INACT and I'm not an ANT
and I'm not in any of the party, it's because
I've always admired you before I was involved in ACT,
the ability of the party to take on tough topics
(04:13):
where others feared to treat And I think it's important
that we're able to have these debates. If the gun
laws are wrong, we should say so. If euthanasia is
a desperate need for our most vulnerable citizens, we should
say so. If the COVID response is actually doing more
harm than good to some people, they should have a voice.
And if our treaty has been twisted over the past
(04:36):
fifty years by the courts and the wait Tangi tribunal
and so on in such a way that it's become divisive.
We should say so. And that's why I'm proud to
be act.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
If it actually came into law, what it actually what
would it actually change for Kiwis.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
It would allow Kiwis to say, yes, I'm proud to
be part of this country. Yes I'm proud of our treaty.
And actually we've had a national debate including everybody that
defines what it says, and it says that the government
can govern, we've all got certain rights, they are equal,
and that we are all equal before the law. And
I think being able to say that when you know
(05:13):
somebody is proposing that your organization should be split or
co governed, when somebody says that health care services should
be delivered along ethnic lines for treaty purposes, or that
some people should have more say over others when it
comes to resource management, having clear understanding where people can
stand up and so actually I agree with that it's
(05:34):
not necessary. Same with malor awards on councils for example.
You know, it's all about allowing people to say I
believe in universal human rights. I don't believe that the
treaty requires us to be split into a partnership between races.
Because it's never worked anywhere else, there's no reason to
think it would work here.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Why I guess I should form this as part make
a statement, as part of a question. Really, my observations
of this generally that with all the inflammatory sort of
threats about this is going to divide the country. I
just don't think New Zealanders a cut out to have
these sort of discussions. I think we're intellectually just sort
of either cowardly or childish.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
What do you think, Well, I think what you're seeing
at the moment is a group of people in academia
and the legal profession, the public service, in the media
who are not used to the greater wish being able
to have a say about these matters. But actually, I've
watched New Zealand have discussions at a very sophisticated and
(06:40):
civilized level, and I think we are capable of it.
We're being sort of double faked into being told that
we can't, and then of course they will pull out
that the occasional idiot who really has reprehensible views anti Maori,
anti Maori culture, ridiculing people for their culture. I'm just
not up for that, and overwhelmingly New Zealanders aren't. But
(07:04):
one thing I find is if I look online at
a comment section or something, or look at some of
the emails I get, and I just think, man, this
country has just lost the plot. And then I just
go out pick a street, knock on a few doors,
just talk to the first person that answers, ask them,
how do you think New Zealand's going, and what's important
(07:26):
to you? And is there anything the government can do better?
And all of a sudden, my faith is restored that actually,
this is a wonderful country and people are far more
capable of holding an opinion and expressing a constructive faith,
and we're given credit or by certain people in media.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Is there a way you could address the concerns that
you're talking about with that? I guess a lot of
people see it as tinkering with the sort of sacrisanct
nature of the treaty is I mean, I look at
those proposals. You've got, government has the power to government.
You recognize the rights of Hapu and Ewi when they
signed the treaty, and everyone's equal before the Lord. Doesn't
(08:04):
actually sound outrage to me, But I'm wondering if as
part of the trouble is that people they just see
this treaty is just don't tinker with that. Could you
have put this into a sort of separate piece of
legislation that's stood on its own, that didn't need to
be seen to be, you know, redrafting a historical document.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Well, I've heard that argument that there should be a
change to the Bill of Rights, and I don't think
it's entirely a bad one, but I also think we've
got to get rid of the historical and measure here.
The truth is that the Treaty has been said to
be a living document for the last fifty years. Parliament
said that there were principles. Maori Council went off to
(08:45):
the Court of Appeal to ask what they were. The
Court had a punt, had it why only tribunals built
a bit more onto that. The government departments have had
to go. At one point they even invented a fourth
article of the Treaty. And everyone says, oh, it's a
living document. It's a living document. I come along and say, okay, well,
I've got a few suggestions for how it could evolve.
(09:07):
Oh no, no, no, no, no, it's Sacris Act. You
can't possibly get involved, say what happened to the Living Document?
You know? So the idea that that's been Sacris Act
and no one's ever built on it, debated it, messed
with it ever before, and I'm the first one. Two, Well,
that's just not true. It's basically been debated since the
day it was signed, even the day before the fact
(09:31):
that for the last fifty years or so, a very
specific interpretation has grown up, and it's been a relatively
small group of people, lawyers, academics, public servants who have
decided what sort of constitutional framework our country should have.
I don't think that what I've come up with is
consistent with successful societies, and I don't think it's right
(09:54):
that such a small and narrow group of people should
get to define something so important to a country's future.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
So what's next.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Well, right now we're going to be drafting the sure
piece of legislation that gets introduced to Parliament. So what
people saw this week was a couple of paragraphs that
act as guidance for that drafting, and no more that
drafting will happen. We introduced to Parliament in November. There'll
be a first reading debate in the House, it'll be
(10:23):
referred off to a select committee. A select committee, we'll
seek submissions from the PUBLICA they say about what they think,
and then the select Committee will report back and at
that point other parties will have to decide A do
we want to have a vote on the Treaty Principles Bill?
And B if we do have a vote, how would
(10:45):
we like to vote? And that won't but that won't
happen until next May.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Excellent. Hey, thanks for so much for your time. David
really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (10:54):
No worries, so thanks for having me on the show.
Good on ya.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
That is David Simmer, of course, the leader of the
ACT Party. I'm going to say, I just I just
I think there's so much inflammation stuff there that's reflected
of course or on the of course in the media.
I don't know we're going to take new calls on this,
but I don't find any of it particularly objectionable. But
there might be something that I don't get. If you
want to inform me on the era of my ways.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news
Talks it'd be weekends from three pm or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.