Speaker 1: You're listening to the Weekend collective podcast from news Talks B.
Speaker 2: The Hikoy has reached Parmerston North, just days away from
Speaker 2: Parliament on Thursday. You will remember the scenes to Party
Speaker 2: marimp Hunter Rafferty m P Clark. That is quite a surname,
Speaker 2: isn't It ripped a copy of the legislation in half
Speaker 2: at the first reading and launched into a hakka, soon
Speaker 2: joined by more MPs and people in the gallery. The
Speaker 2: hakker went worldwide viral, international media commentators having their say
Speaker 2: on it as well. And with me now is Act
Speaker 2: Party leader and the bill's author, slash architect David Seymour.
Speaker 2: Good afternoon, Good afternoon. I found someone who likes your
Speaker 2: bill even more than you do. And I think you're
Speaker 2: going to be getting a Christmas card from Rawdy Yit
Speaker 2: for giving him the best ever recruitment tool he's ever had.
Speaker 3: Well, that maybe hits you, but I think the question
Speaker 3: is what does the recruiting people for that's positive, that
Speaker 3: can ultimately solve problems for people. If I look at
Speaker 3: what I would want is the place to live, better education,
Speaker 3: better job prospects. Funnily enough, the same thing everyone wants
Speaker 3: and to Party MARII, I think are showing that they
Speaker 3: don't really have any solutions, just theatrics, So he might
Speaker 3: think that that I'm not sure that it's going to
Speaker 3: build much of a movement for him just being against things.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, has a pretty comprehensive set of
Speaker 3: policies on everything from the ARIMA to delivering charter schools
Speaker 3: and getting more overseas investment to make New Zealand a
Speaker 3: wealthare place.
Speaker 2: What is the best that we can hope to gain
Speaker 2: from the presentation of this bill, because I mean, let's
Speaker 2: face it, we're not going to be hitting a referendum,
Speaker 2: but we are going to have a select committee process.
Speaker 3: Well, as you said in your intro, you don't think
Speaker 3: that I just hold the possibility open for you that
Speaker 3: say that. A week's a long time in politics, and
Speaker 3: we've got about twenty five weeks until the Select committeees
Speaker 3: due to report back. But let's just for a moment
Speaker 3: take you that you know what you're saying is true
Speaker 3: and it will only get to the first reading in
Speaker 3: the select committee process. Well, in that instance, what we
Speaker 3: will have done is democratize the treaty and introduced the
Speaker 3: idea that all voices count that everyone has equal rights
Speaker 3: in New Zealand to have a say about the future
Speaker 3: of our constitutional settings. That's quite different from what we've
Speaker 3: had over the last forty years, where there's been a
Speaker 3: fairly sublect and not very representative group of people, mainly
Speaker 3: in the legal fraternity, that have been forming a view
Speaker 3: of the treaty that the whole country has to live under,
Speaker 3: but most people don't get a say on So that
Speaker 3: democratization is big. And if you doubt that, you only
Speaker 3: have to look at my opponents who agree with me
Speaker 3: on this. If they really thought that the bill wasn't
Speaker 3: going anywhere, why are they putting in so much effort
Speaker 3: because they are opposed to the idea that people should
Speaker 3: have a say.
Speaker 2: Are you concerned about the sense of division that is
Speaker 2: growing in New Zealand and that some people are saying
Speaker 2: it's sowing a greater degree of division between New Zealanders.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm extremely concerned, but bear in mind that was
Speaker 3: true over a year ago before the last election under
Speaker 3: the previous government, where I think forty seven percent of
Speaker 3: New Zealanders said they felt the country was becoming more divided.
Speaker 3: And that is because for the last thirty or forty years,
Speaker 3: successive governments have told us that our treaty is a
Speaker 3: partnership between two groups. Those groups are based on ancestry,
Speaker 3: and as soon as you tell people that, the danger
Speaker 3: is they start to believe it. And you've now got
Speaker 3: a lot of people who will truly believe that if
Speaker 3: they are not seen through an ancestral lens as one
Speaker 3: of the treaty partners, not respected, it's targue to Penowa.
Speaker 3: Then you're taking something from them. And when you say, well, actually,
Speaker 3: what we're promising is equal rights for all citizens and
Speaker 3: a liberal democracy, they must be the only people in
Speaker 3: the world who don't want that, because successive governments have
Speaker 3: built up the expectations they have.
Speaker 2: I've heard a lot of accusations, and some of them
Speaker 2: are impugning your integrity and your motives behind it, saying that, look,
Speaker 2: you're just doing this because it's a pathway for ACT
Speaker 2: to get more support from people who think the same way.
Speaker 2: But I thought i'd give you a chance to answer
Speaker 2: those critics who are saying this is a cynical political ploy.
Speaker 3: There's a great line in Shakespeare measuring the minds of
Speaker 3: others by one's own and I suspect some of the
Speaker 3: people who are saying that are saying it because that's
Speaker 3: how they would think. And I'm sorry if that's the case.
Speaker 3: But I can tell you the reason that I'm doing
Speaker 3: this is not because it's easy, not because I like
Speaker 3: the amount of criticism and abuse I seem to be
Speaker 3: copping from some quarters. It's probably not the easiest way
Speaker 3: to promote the Act Party, and there's some risk that
Speaker 3: people will turn against you for taking a controversial stand.
Speaker 3: But throughout my career, whether it's been the earthquake regulations,
Speaker 3: I was the only one to oppose them. Everyone said,
Speaker 3: how could you in the of the christ Church tragedy
Speaker 3: that cost tens of billions of dollars, nowhereal benefit. Now
Speaker 3: the government's reversing them. The firearm laws after March for then,
Speaker 3: people said, how could you? I think if you look
Speaker 3: at the rise of gun violence after they banned all
Speaker 3: those firearms, that just disappeared and made place more dangerous.
Speaker 3: I was actually right about that. And again assisted dying
Speaker 3: or euthanasia. We've just had three years of assisted dying
Speaker 3: being legal in New Zealand. At the time people said
Speaker 3: all sorts of biviest things about how terrible I was,
Speaker 3: but it was the right thing to do. And once again,
Speaker 3: you know, I believe that equal rights forfort the law
Speaker 3: are the only basis for a successful society and the
Speaker 3: only way we'll solve all of those other problems such
Speaker 3: as housing and health and education and economic growth which
Speaker 3: may seem more urgent but are harder to do when
Speaker 3: you have this deviceive constitutional base.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was when I was chatting with Duncan web
Speaker 2: about this, and we lightheartedly referred to the reference from
Speaker 2: the movie The Castle AND's the vibe and everything, But
Speaker 2: that was on the It's basically connected with the idea
Speaker 2: that the principles are sort of fluid and they've decided
Speaker 2: on a case by case basis. Is there in a
Speaker 2: way I'm going to ask you to argue against your
Speaker 2: own position a little bit, But is there some sort
Speaker 2: of strength in the fact that we do have a
Speaker 2: sort of fluidity to these principles and the dangers locking
Speaker 2: them in in legislation.
Speaker 3: Well, the main thing that people want from the law
Speaker 3: is certainty, because if you know what the law is,
Speaker 3: then you're able to make investment decisions and all sorts
Speaker 3: of choices about how you're going to live your life
Speaker 3: because you know how you're going to be treated under
Speaker 3: the law in different circumstances. I would argue what we
Speaker 3: have right now is great uncertainty. You only have to
Speaker 3: look at the Resource Management Acts under our current conception
Speaker 3: of the Treaty. I was talking to someone just this week.
Speaker 3: They've been trying to do a major consent. It's been
Speaker 3: held up for four years because RNA requires you to
Speaker 3: consult locally. Some agree, one doesn't, and as a result
Speaker 3: it's been held up for years being developed. Now. I
Speaker 3: think that's just shocking. It's a good example of how
Speaker 3: not having the kind of certainty my bill provides, where
Speaker 3: we say, look, but these are the principles everyone has
Speaker 3: Ecore runs. That is actually what we really need from
Speaker 3: a law.
Speaker 2: I guess National would say, look, we can change that
Speaker 2: legislation without having to bring in a principles bill. What
Speaker 2: do you say to.
Speaker 3: That, Well, I think that's one of the arguments that
Speaker 3: the National Party make is that well, yes, but we've
Speaker 3: got rid of Maori Health Authority, we've got rid of
Speaker 3: the co governance and three wards we're changing back the
Speaker 3: Maori wards. We're doing a review of treaty principles in
Speaker 3: some but not all laws, and therefore there's no need
Speaker 3: to get to the core of the Treaty of Bytoni's
Speaker 3: meaning and right about the fact that they're doing it
Speaker 3: and at wholeheartedly supports all of those initiatives and more. However,
Speaker 3: it's also true that we have a whole lot of
Speaker 3: policies that came about because of this idea that the
Speaker 3: treaty created a partnership between two groups based on ancestry.
Speaker 3: And the thing is labor get back in. And this
Speaker 3: is a democracy. I mean, chances are there'll be a
Speaker 3: change to a government from the left at some point
Speaker 3: in the next decade, and when that happens, they will,
Speaker 3: at the stroke of a pen, pick up the ideas
Speaker 3: that are lying around and reinstate all of those policies,
Speaker 3: and we will go one step further down this device
Speaker 3: of path.
Speaker 2: What's the best argument you've heard against your position?
Speaker 3: Well, I think that there are people who say that
Speaker 3: the Parliament should stay out of it and leave it
Speaker 3: up to the judges to interpret a contract between the
Speaker 3: chiefs and the crown. And that's a fine argument so
Speaker 3: far as it goes. The reason I don't buy that
Speaker 3: argument is that ultimately you've got to actually make constitutional
Speaker 3: settings that work. So if they were left to their
Speaker 3: own devices, they would take us to a place where
Speaker 3: there are tongas of Fenua land people tongue to TVT
Speaker 3: everyone else's. It's kind of here by dinta for treaty.
Speaker 3: And there are no successful models of societies that divide
Speaker 3: their citizens with different places in society based on ancestry.
Speaker 2: Are you going to be meeting the Hakoi?
Speaker 3: Well a week ago I was quite keen to then
Speaker 3: one of the leaders, du Kapakini, who is actually the
Speaker 3: son of a to Party of Maori and p Maori
Speaker 3: Party employee. As far as I can tell, he's on
Speaker 3: the Parliamentary Directory of Staff. He's the leader, and he
Speaker 3: said he doesn't want to talk to me because I
Speaker 3: don't speak Maori. And then I watched the behavior of
Speaker 3: two party mary in our parliament, which frankly is embarrassed
Speaker 3: New Zealand. Globally. They won't care, they'll think it's great,
Speaker 3: but I think it will have embarrassed New Zealand globally.
Speaker 3: They're going to look at that and I'm sorry, I'm
Speaker 3: going to look at that and say well, you know,
Speaker 3: as this becomes more and more clearly your Mari Party project,
Speaker 3: do I want to be a part of that? Can?
Speaker 3: I hope to have a decent exchange and communication with protest.
Speaker 3: It's been organized by the same people that were responsible
Speaker 3: for that display in Parliament this week, So I'm becoming
Speaker 3: a bit more hesitant. I've got to say.
Speaker 2: Look, I mentioned that you've learned in life that you know,
Speaker 2: there's one thing to have a discussion based on recent arguments,
Speaker 2: and even if you were right on this, depending on
Speaker 2: people's point of view, there's also the political argument, which
Speaker 2: you can lose whether you're right or not. Is there
Speaker 2: a point where if you feel you're losing the political argument,
Speaker 2: you might change your approach on this or you just
Speaker 2: we're just going to see this through.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean right now. Well, it's in the hands
Speaker 3: of the Select Committee. There's a coalition commitment that they're
Speaker 3: going to do six months of hearings and give people
Speaker 3: the choice. I find it difficult. So the major change
Speaker 3: you could make is to say you no longer want
Speaker 3: to do that. I find it difficult to believe that
Speaker 3: there's any benefit and saying no New Zealanders shouldn't be
Speaker 3: able to have a say on this bill, So that's
Speaker 3: probably the even and I don't know if I really
Speaker 3: even have the power to change that, to be honest,
Speaker 3: So no, I mean, you know, as I have all along,
Speaker 3: I meet people with reasoned arguments, and I just constantly
Speaker 3: say the people, which part of the bill do you oppose?
Speaker 3: Is the government having the right to govern equal rights?
Speaker 3: What are you against? And second of all, how is
Speaker 3: this world you propose supposed to work where you've got
Speaker 3: two groups of people divided by their ancestry trying to
Speaker 3: work together. Pretty difficult to see how.
Speaker 2: That works, I guess as part of that question. And
Speaker 2: I know it's a difficult for a politician to answer
Speaker 2: this question because you've got to stick to your gun.
Speaker 2: But you know, we can all set it ramping up
Speaker 2: in the drama that it creates, and I don't want
Speaker 2: to catastrophize that either, as we've seen from comments like
Speaker 2: Jenny Shipley. But do you have moments where you know
Speaker 2: you have a bit of time to yourself and you
Speaker 2: still look at yourself in the mornin and think, oh
Speaker 2: goodness me, what am I? What am I doing? Do
Speaker 2: you have a moments when you sort of think, should
Speaker 2: I persist with this?
Speaker 3: Well? I do occasionally, and then I just come back
Speaker 3: to Okay, do I want to live in a country
Speaker 3: which is officially divided by people's ancestry? So it doesn't
Speaker 3: take it very long to come back to know. I
Speaker 3: want people who believe in that have the opportunity to
Speaker 3: explain to New Zealand why they believe that they have
Speaker 3: special rights based on birth. But the New zealand And
Speaker 3: I want them to explain where in the world has
Speaker 3: it been successful to divide citizens up who their ancestors were.
Speaker 2: Do you think we'll be able to turn down the
Speaker 2: temperature of the conversation eventually? Is the select committee process
Speaker 2: goes on or is it? What are your thoughts about that?
Speaker 2: Can we have a mature conversation?
Speaker 3: Well, I suspect at some point the Maori Party support
Speaker 3: us are going to start assume themselves. You know, where
Speaker 3: are these guys taking us? How's this going to get
Speaker 3: me better health, housing, education and economy? Because they're not
Speaker 3: providing any solutions other than everything has to be mari
Speaker 3: And the truth is that, you know, there's a range
Speaker 3: of people across New very deeply into tow Maori others
Speaker 3: less so, and what we all need to do together
Speaker 3: is figure out how to build more roads and infrastructure.
Speaker 3: The Treaty Principles Bill would give a better basis constitutionally
Speaker 3: for doing those things, because we wouldn't have this constant division.
Speaker 3: But you know, I think at some point they're going
Speaker 3: to have to ask themselves what they're doing.
Speaker 2: I guess it's I mean, we've almost put the Marray
Speaker 2: party one side, because there are people who are not
Speaker 2: on that side of the ledger who are still I
Speaker 2: mean in terms of the middle, do you think we'll
Speaker 2: be able to have a rational discussion excluding that side
Speaker 2: of things.
Speaker 3: Well, that's certainly what I set out to achieve. And
Speaker 3: you know the way I carry myself and the arguments
Speaker 3: I make, I just stick to the basic questions. Some
Speaker 3: people say it's simple, Well, you know, my questions are
Speaker 3: where has a society as they propose being a success,
Speaker 3: if anywhere in history? Because I can point to you
Speaker 3: to lots of disastrous examples. And second of all, you know,
Speaker 3: what exactly about the bill do you dislike? And I
Speaker 3: urge people to go to Treaty dot in z online
Speaker 3: and actually read through from the horse's mouth as it were,
Speaker 3: what the Treaty Principal's Bill actually is about.
Speaker 2: Okay, hey, David, I really appreciate your time this afternoon,
Speaker 2: and good luck with everything, and we'll talk to again sometime.
Speaker 3: No worries, and once again, that was treaty dot in
Speaker 3: z Jeers.
Speaker 2: Thanks very much. That's Act Party leader and the author
Speaker 2: of the Treaty Principal's Bill, David Seymour.
Speaker 1: For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Speaker 1: Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
Speaker 1: on iHeartRadio.