The PM is weak. National as a party is weakened. Race relations at an all time low. I'm so ashamed of that bill going through. Regression is a thing. National has handed the reins of control to its wagging tail.
The youngest MP in the house, Hana Maipi-Clarke's actions? Loved it. What a pity about the so called more experienced MPs in the coaltion of crap. Māori will not be sidelined. Toitu Te Tiriti. Mauri Ora!
I've been emailing my local MPs telling them that I'm very much against this bill, and that if it passes in any shape or form that they'll have made an enemy who will be doing everything legally possible to reduce their chances of re election.
You said every MP except ACT opposed the bill yesterday. But they could not have as it has gone on to a Select Committee and I heard each party apart from Labour, Te Pati Māori and the Green Party agree to that. The drama in the House was predictable and justified. It shows that we are heading down a divisive path in our race relations after years of progress. Where has good leadership gone? The Bill should never have been part of the coalition agreement in the first place.
You are correct – apologies, I should have said that all government parties voted in support of the bill and all opposition parties opposed it. What I think I meant (at 5am) was that only Act defended it. – Stewart
Chris Finlayson the former Attorney- General and Minister of Treaty Negotiations under the John Key government said Key would never have put up with Seymour’s antics and if Seymour said he would go to the benches Key would have said fine. I will stand in your electorate and destroy you. Obviously Luxon allowed the tail to wag the dog. Rather than consider Seymour’s bill on the effect of race relations in Aoteoroa / New Zealand Luxon allowed Seymour to have his way. This is also a reflection on Luxon’s lack of political nous . Rather than flying on a jet plane around the world Luxon should stay home and face the consequences.
I watched the reading of the Treaty Principles Bill in the House yesterday and was disgusted at the screaming and shouting from the left side of the house and what appeared to be some in the public gallery. Despite warnings from the Speaker he was unable to control the House and did nothing until he had lost complete control. Having said that, those who took part in the disrespectful and disgusting behaviour clearly had no intention of listening to him. Willie Jackson was clearly very angry, unfortunately he seems unable to control his anger, he deserved to be kicked out. The behaviour of the Greens throughout the debate was pathetic, lots of uncontrolled anger. Clearly many of these MPs need anger management intervention. The worst of the lot was te Pati Maori, it was obviously a planned interruption with Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke enjoying every moment of her disgraceful behaviour. She deserved being suspended, 24 hours if not long enough though. Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer are clearly the ring leaders of this disgraceful behaviour and should be sanctioned. The intimidation towards David Seymour was far worse than the Green MP who intimidated Matt Doocey some months ago. At the end when Ngarewa-Packer aimed 2 fingers at David Seymour, it appeared to me that she was aiming a gun at him. I was extremely concerned at this threat and hope she is investigated by Police. When several of the opposition joined in the haka I was disappointed to see Peeni Henare join in. I hope those who joined the haka are also sanctioned.
It really says something about you, Barbara, that you want the Police to investigate a Wahine MP for pointing at someone and are more concerned with decorum in the house than with a Bill that's nakedly aimed at disenfranchising Māori, sowing racial division and undoing decades of work trying to remedy injustices.
What I saw live that day was Debbie Ngarewa-Packer deliberately pointing her fingers at David Seymour in the context of 'shooting' him. I am not the only person who noticed this and commented on it. This is threatening behaviour.
You need to carefully read the Bill. It does not change the Treaty. Review what happened in the 1970s and 1980s around the Treaty.
It wasn't "in the context of 'shooting' him," it was in the context of challenging him because of the Bill he introduced into Parliament. You seem like someone who would feel threatened if a Māori person looked at you.
I've read the Bill as well. It's far too simplistic, by design. I was alive in the 1970s and 1980s. Both of my parents worked in politics - one as a staffer and one as a Cabinet Minister. I've been steeped in New Zealand politics all my life. I know what happened, and I know what this Bill is intended to do.
After having read all of the comments,which I 100% agree with, there is probably little I can add. Suffice to say I was extremely proud to be a New Zealander as I watched the reaction to this awful bill which one person (whose party is a small minority)is attempting to introduce without any consultation at all with those who will be affected most. Te Pati Moari were wonderful.
Thank you, yes I am entitled to comment on what I observe and think. It would/will be a sad day in New Zealand if we would only allowed one view/opinion.
The great thing I see in this community here is the opportunity to challenge my thinking, to be exposed to more ideas and to grow myself as a person. I did find myself through the years changing my mind on a couple of things.
It is your prerogative as to what you want to do with what you are exposed to here.
The disgusting behaviour Barbara, is an attempt to re-write an agreement without consulting the other party, and from a group with barely enough public support to enter parliament, who then elbowed their way into a position of influence by holding a weak leader to ransom.
From what I can see, the whole country is disgusted apart from a very small minority who are now pointing a finger at the reaction they created.
Free speech is allowed in New Zealand. I am entitled to comment on what I see as bad behaviour as occurred that day just as you are entitled to disagree with my comments.
The "small minority" are actually a large majority.
This is a Te Parti Maori protest rather than a New Zealand Maori protest.
I don't see anything here challenging your right to free speech. The issue is that a small minority hold a legally incorrect and morally repugnant view that is potentially damaging to a lot of people. But perhaps that's the intention.
I totally disagree with your comment that assumes a "small minority hold a legally incorrect and morally repugnant view that is potentially damaging to a lot of people."
Perhaps you would explain exactly what is 'legally incorrect' and what you mean by 'morally repugnant'.
The PM is weak. National as a party is weakened. Race relations at an all time low. I'm so ashamed of that bill going through. Regression is a thing. National has handed the reins of control to its wagging tail.
The youngest MP in the house, Hana Maipi-Clarke's actions? Loved it. What a pity about the so called more experienced MPs in the coaltion of crap. Māori will not be sidelined. Toitu Te Tiriti. Mauri Ora!
Totally agree with youKueenie!!
I've been emailing my local MPs telling them that I'm very much against this bill, and that if it passes in any shape or form that they'll have made an enemy who will be doing everything legally possible to reduce their chances of re election.
You said every MP except ACT opposed the bill yesterday. But they could not have as it has gone on to a Select Committee and I heard each party apart from Labour, Te Pati Māori and the Green Party agree to that. The drama in the House was predictable and justified. It shows that we are heading down a divisive path in our race relations after years of progress. Where has good leadership gone? The Bill should never have been part of the coalition agreement in the first place.
You are correct – apologies, I should have said that all government parties voted in support of the bill and all opposition parties opposed it. What I think I meant (at 5am) was that only Act defended it. – Stewart
This is from David Lange in 1989, with a proposed Treaty Bill which wasn't passed:
The government has the right to govern and make laws.
Iwi have the right to organise as iwi, and under the law, control their resources as their own.
All New Zealanders are equal before the law.
Both the government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern.
The government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.
Lange was accused by some of trying to re-write the Treaty.
Gary Dyall
Chris Finlayson the former Attorney- General and Minister of Treaty Negotiations under the John Key government said Key would never have put up with Seymour’s antics and if Seymour said he would go to the benches Key would have said fine. I will stand in your electorate and destroy you. Obviously Luxon allowed the tail to wag the dog. Rather than consider Seymour’s bill on the effect of race relations in Aoteoroa / New Zealand Luxon allowed Seymour to have his way. This is also a reflection on Luxon’s lack of political nous . Rather than flying on a jet plane around the world Luxon should stay home and face the consequences.
I watched the reading of the Treaty Principles Bill in the House yesterday and was disgusted at the screaming and shouting from the left side of the house and what appeared to be some in the public gallery. Despite warnings from the Speaker he was unable to control the House and did nothing until he had lost complete control. Having said that, those who took part in the disrespectful and disgusting behaviour clearly had no intention of listening to him. Willie Jackson was clearly very angry, unfortunately he seems unable to control his anger, he deserved to be kicked out. The behaviour of the Greens throughout the debate was pathetic, lots of uncontrolled anger. Clearly many of these MPs need anger management intervention. The worst of the lot was te Pati Maori, it was obviously a planned interruption with Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke enjoying every moment of her disgraceful behaviour. She deserved being suspended, 24 hours if not long enough though. Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer are clearly the ring leaders of this disgraceful behaviour and should be sanctioned. The intimidation towards David Seymour was far worse than the Green MP who intimidated Matt Doocey some months ago. At the end when Ngarewa-Packer aimed 2 fingers at David Seymour, it appeared to me that she was aiming a gun at him. I was extremely concerned at this threat and hope she is investigated by Police. When several of the opposition joined in the haka I was disappointed to see Peeni Henare join in. I hope those who joined the haka are also sanctioned.
It really says something about you, Barbara, that you want the Police to investigate a Wahine MP for pointing at someone and are more concerned with decorum in the house than with a Bill that's nakedly aimed at disenfranchising Māori, sowing racial division and undoing decades of work trying to remedy injustices.
What I saw live that day was Debbie Ngarewa-Packer deliberately pointing her fingers at David Seymour in the context of 'shooting' him. I am not the only person who noticed this and commented on it. This is threatening behaviour.
You need to carefully read the Bill. It does not change the Treaty. Review what happened in the 1970s and 1980s around the Treaty.
It wasn't "in the context of 'shooting' him," it was in the context of challenging him because of the Bill he introduced into Parliament. You seem like someone who would feel threatened if a Māori person looked at you.
I've read the Bill as well. It's far too simplistic, by design. I was alive in the 1970s and 1980s. Both of my parents worked in politics - one as a staffer and one as a Cabinet Minister. I've been steeped in New Zealand politics all my life. I know what happened, and I know what this Bill is intended to do.
Very sad that you think like this.
It would be good if you could explain "very sad" in the context of my comment.
After having read all of the comments,which I 100% agree with, there is probably little I can add. Suffice to say I was extremely proud to be a New Zealander as I watched the reaction to this awful bill which one person (whose party is a small minority)is attempting to introduce without any consultation at all with those who will be affected most. Te Pati Moari were wonderful.
When the pretence of civility is more important than the principles it's supposed to protect we get comments like yours Barbara.
Thank you, yes I am entitled to comment on what I observe and think. It would/will be a sad day in New Zealand if we would only allowed one view/opinion.
The great thing I see in this community here is the opportunity to challenge my thinking, to be exposed to more ideas and to grow myself as a person. I did find myself through the years changing my mind on a couple of things.
It is your prerogative as to what you want to do with what you are exposed to here.
The disgusting behaviour Barbara, is an attempt to re-write an agreement without consulting the other party, and from a group with barely enough public support to enter parliament, who then elbowed their way into a position of influence by holding a weak leader to ransom.
From what I can see, the whole country is disgusted apart from a very small minority who are now pointing a finger at the reaction they created.
Free speech is allowed in New Zealand. I am entitled to comment on what I see as bad behaviour as occurred that day just as you are entitled to disagree with my comments.
The "small minority" are actually a large majority.
This is a Te Parti Maori protest rather than a New Zealand Maori protest.
Your thought process is both weird and disgraceful. How unfortunate
Please explain what you mean by your comment.
Are 'we' only allowed to think in one way?
I don't see anything here challenging your right to free speech. The issue is that a small minority hold a legally incorrect and morally repugnant view that is potentially damaging to a lot of people. But perhaps that's the intention.
I totally disagree with your comment that assumes a "small minority hold a legally incorrect and morally repugnant view that is potentially damaging to a lot of people."
Perhaps you would explain exactly what is 'legally incorrect' and what you mean by 'morally repugnant'.