David Seymour talks about seeking equality and universal human rights. This is deceptive and fraudulent. On the surface equality is a persuasive catch phrase, much like the notion of freedom (see previous post). But if you dig beneath the surface it is clear that the ACT Party’s concept of equality in Aotearoa is that we can all be (behave) like Pākēha. It is taking us back to the 1950s – we can all be equal provided you live as we say you must live. This isn’t equality, it is coloniality: assimilation. And more than this we can and must all be (behave) like rich capitalist Pākēhā. This isn’t true either – Aotearoa is a radically unequal society. This is a simple function of capitalist economics. Look around you, tell me what you see.
I am not going to traverse the history and meaning of Te Tiriti at length. There are very many scholars who can do this much better than me (Mikaere; Fitzmaurice-Brown). I want to keep this post short and clear. Te Tiriti o Waitangi sets out the right of Māori to self determination – the authority of Māori to govern themselves: to survive and thrive as a distinct people – a communal people as opposed to the separated individuals imagined in liberal philsophy. Seymour knows this, which is why his appeal for equality is disingenuous (*bullshit). I have friends who are deceived by the rhetoric – “why can’t we all just be the same?”
Te Tiriti is relied on by tangata whenua, the Indigenous people of this land, as a guarantee that the values, beliefs, social structures, culture / kawa / tikanga, Iwi-centered identity, living connections to collective whakapapa, can be preserved, adapted and developed into the future: walking forward, looking backwards. The Kura Kaupapa generation understand this: praise the Lord and pass the ammo!
I believe that Pākēha / Tau Iwi / Tangata Tiriti have a role in all of this – to advocate and educate others about the shallowness, the fraudulent and destructive intent, that sits behind David Seymour’s reptilian smirk. Social workers have the capacity to influence others to understand what is going on here: don’t just talk to yourselves good people – talk to those who are at risk of drinking the far right kool aid: expose the lie! This is our role in the kotahitanga kaupapa. Embrace it as you embrace your place in this land.
11 replies on “Toitū te Tiriti”
“This isn’t equality, it is coloniality”
Exactly.
If the Treaty Principles Bill passes, we need to consider how it could affect environmental and community protections. The bill could reshape how economic opportunities are handled, especially in resource-heavy sectors.
1. Increased Investment Stability: The bill aims to reduce uncertainty around Treaty principles, which currently influence legal rulings on land and resource use. Making these principles less significant in the legal process might make New Zealand more attractive to investors, especially those in agriculture, forestry, and energy, because projects would face fewer regulatory delays.
2. Simplified Resource Access: Currently, co-governance and consultation with Māori can slow down or complicate corporate projects. If this bill leads to fewer obligations for consultation, companies could gain faster access to land and resources, cutting down on negotiation costs and regulatory hurdles.
3. Fewer Obligations in Public Projects: The removal of Treaty-based requirements could allow for fewer constraints on who wins government contracts. This might open the door for corporations that otherwise had to meet partnership or equity standards in public projects.
Let’s consider real-world examples:
Freshwater Rights: Ngāi Tahu’s claims on water use have influenced national discussions on resource management, sometimes delaying corporate activities.
Seabed Mining: Legal challenges from Māori groups have delayed or halted seabed mining projects, showing the influence of Treaty principles.
Oil and Gas Exploration: Energy companies have had to navigate Māori opposition, affecting exploration timelines.
These protections exist not just to uphold Māori rights but to ensure environmental stewardship and community engagement. If stripped away, who benefits? The conversation should shift from race-based arguments to examining how this bill could prioritize economic interests over the long-term health of our land and communities.
When you shift the perspective from The Crown being the colonizer to money and economic growth, you understand that it’s never been about race. It has always been about gaining more access to a country’s resources for economic pursuits and growth. Extractive colonialism.
Whose interests are being protected here? Is it really about equality, or is it about making it easier for economic pursuits to take precedence over collective well-being?
Thanks for adding this important dimension re the intent / vested interests sitting behind the ACT / hard right agenda – Appreciate your contribution Misty.
The fact that Maori oppose any tampering with te Tiriti is reason enough not to tamper with it. It was signed by 500 chiefs, representing most, if not all, tangata whenua. They took it very seriously. They were giving huge concessions, in the hope the British would set up a system to control their people. They had no idea their land, i.e. their capital, was being promised to boatloads of immigrants about to arrive. They were deceived again and again, but they hold to te Tiriti and all they understood about the partnership they were signing. We just need to hear them and respect them.
Thank you for this – really helpful.
Thanks Mandy – pleased you have found this useful. As Misty illustrates so clearly there are interests/money making corportate motivations behind all of this. The ACT approach, and certaintly Seymour’s strategy is to appear soooo open and reasonable when in fact the agenda is neither of those things – it racist liberal colonial capitalism thinly disguised as sweetness and light.
I have refined my thoughts around this and elaborated based on feedback from others here and elsewhere. I wrote this quite quickly initially, but here’s an update for those who are interested:
This bill has environmental and community protection risks which would affect ALL of us, not just Māori. The bill could reshape how economic opportunities are handled, especially in resource-heavy sectors.
1. Increased Investment Stability: The bill aims to reduce uncertainty around Treaty principles, which currently influence legal rulings on land and resource use. Making these principles less significant in the legal process might make New Zealand more attractive to investors, especially those in agriculture, forestry, and energy, because projects would face fewer regulatory delays.
2. Simplified Resource Access: Currently, co-governance and consultation with Māori can slow down or “complicate” corporate projects. If this bill leads to fewer obligations for consultation, companies could gain faster access to land and resources, cutting down on negotiation costs and regulatory hurdles.
3. Fewer Obligations in Public Projects: The removal of Treaty-based requirements could allow for fewer constraints on who wins government contracts. This might open the door for corporations that otherwise had to meet partnership or equity standards in public projects.
Considering some real-world examples:
Freshwater Rights: Ngāi Tahu’s claims on water use have influenced national discussions on resource management, sometimes delaying corporate activities.
Seabed Mining: Legal concerns from Māori groups have delayed or halted seabed mining projects, showing the influence of Treaty principles.
Oil and Gas Exploration: Energy companies have had to navigate Māori opposition, affecting exploration timelines.
In essence, less accountability for government and corporations to the community and environment. I personally believe that the values Māori bring to society are a treasure and worth being accountable to.
Another significant real-world outcome of the Treaty Principles Bill could be the reduction or dismantling of Māori values-based social services. These services are often grounded in Māori cultural frameworks, such as whanaungatanga (building and maintaining relationships), manaakitanga (care and support), and kaitiakitanga (stewardship). By centering these values, they offer approaches that address the unique needs of Māori communities and often achieve outcomes where mainstream services have fallen short.
If the principles of the Treaty are sidelined, funding and support for these Māori-led initiatives may decline as they are viewed as “preferential” rather than necessary for equity. This could lead to:
1. Erosion of Community-Led Solutions: Programs developed and run by iwi or hapū that focus on social services, education, health, and rehabilitation could lose their footing. These services are often more effective for Māori because they align with cultural values and practices.
2. Increased Inequality: Without Treaty principles to uphold partnership obligations, mainstream services could further marginalize Māori, leaving them to navigate systems not designed with their needs in mind. This risks exacerbating disparities in health, education, and social outcomes.
3. Loss of Innovation in Social Services: Māori-led programs often incorporate holistic, relationship-based models that have inspired changes in broader social service design. Dismantling these programs would not only harm Māori communities but also undermine broader innovation in the sector.
The reduction of Māori values-based social services highlights a critical gap in the equality argument presented by ACT. True equality doesn’t mean erasing difference; it means ensuring that systems are adaptive and inclusive enough to meet the needs of everyone. By prioritizing economic streamlining over cultural partnerships, this bill could severely weaken social frameworks that benefit not only Māori but all New Zealanders.
These protections exist not just to uphold Māori rights but to ensure environmental stewardship and accountability so that economic interests are not prioritised over the long-term health of our land and communities.
The ACT Party’s approach, including David Seymour’s framing of the Treaty Principles Bill, reflects a particular worldview focused on what they see as “equality” and reducing what they term preferential treatment. Seymour’s strategy appears open and reasonable on the surface, but the deeper implications suggest a broader agenda tied to capitalist exploitation, whether intentionally or inadvertently. Their interpretation of the Treaty seems to prioritize increased access to resources and streamlined economic activity. This perspective inherently risks sidelining tangata whenua and diminishing environmental safeguards.
While this worldview might not acknowledge its colonial or exploitative underpinnings, the outcomes speak volumes. Simplifying Treaty obligations doesn’t just remove barriers for economic growth—it risks further entrenching systemic inequalities and eroding the protections that safeguard our shared environment. This isn’t about fostering genuine equity; it’s about enabling economic pursuits that often disregard collective well-being.
When Māori thrive, so does the whole of Aotearoa. A Treaty-based approach to governance ensures stewardship over resources and a partnership model that benefits everyone. Ignoring these principles in favour of unrestricted economic activity jeopardizes not only tangata whenua but the long-term health and sustainability of the land we all share.
Nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi.
With your food basket, and my food basket, the people will thrive.
Feel free to use and refine yourself.
Kia ora Misty – thank you for expanding this. Very useful – I think it is always helpful to show those who may be led to belive otherwise, that Pākēhā / Tau Iwi benefit from upholding Te Tiriti – to challenge unfounded perceptions of threat as you do here.
How is the Treaty Principles bill stopping Maori from achieving self determination ? It may be a little easier to be pakeha, but nobody is standing over Maori saying they cant be communal. You dont need a colonial pakeha govt to give you self-determination, just like you didnt need the govt to arrange your Hikoi.
No you don’t Mark but it is important to grasp what is at stake in order to find a place to stand. What you have here is a Bill proposing to take away the authority guaranteed by Te Tiriti: that is why 50, 000 people marched on Parliament on Tuesday. People marched because they can see the oppressive / disempowering intent hiding behind the simplistic / deceptive appeal to ‘equality’.
Thank you Ian. Your post is clear and articulates core concepts we tangata tiriti can use in our conversations as we work on influencing people around who may be drinking that Kool aid.
Kia ora Ian – This is a snake wine promise of Equality! Seymour is Horkos personified! … of broken promises and functions that would befall anybody, would lure to profit for a moment but eventually bring destruction to his community…. Do not drink that Kool aid!