Culture New Zealand Parliament disrupted by Maori MPs performing a protest Haka in wake of new bill that will set new interpretation for Waitangi Maori treaty

Preserve Tube archive / https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politica...es-bill-has-been-released-here-s-what-s-in-it Politics Te Ao Māori /

The youngest member of New Zealand’s parliament, Māori Party MP Hana-Rawhiti Kareariki Maipi-Clarke, started a haka to protest the first vote on a contentious bill that would reinterpret a 184-year-old treaty between the British and Indigenous Maori. The parliament was briefly suspended on Thursday after the protest. First signed in 1840 between the British Crown and more than 500 Maori chiefs, the Treaty of Waitangi lays down how the two parties agreed to govern. The interpretation of clauses in the document still guides legislation and policy today.

The Treaty Principles Bill has been released: Here's what's in it /​

Watch: Haka interrupts vote for the Treaty Principles Bill​

A haka led by Te Pāti Māori interrupted voting for the Treaty Principles Bill this afternoon.

Opposition MPs and the public gallery stood to perform Ka Mate, after Hauraki Waikato MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke stood to deliver her Te Pāti Māori's vote against the bill.

The Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, who had expressed his lack of patience with a number of MPs for their interjections throughout the afternoon, suspended the sitting until the bells next ring.

---
The four-page Treaty Principles Bill has been introduced and will be debated in Parliament next week.
As with all bills, the text begins with an explanatory note, includes links to some of the advice provided about it, such as a regulatory impact statement, and sets out the specific wording the law would change if enacted.
All parties other than ACT have committed to voting the bill down at the second reading after it has been to select committee, which would stop it from passing into law.
The bill states it would set out the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation, and requires those principles to be used when interpreting legislation, where relevant.
The bill's final clause states nothing in the bill would amend the text of the Treaty of Waitangi or Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
A group of protestors had gathered in Auckland's Newmarket. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi
The principles set out in the bill as introduced are:
  • Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws, (a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
  • Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. (2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
  • Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to (a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
The bill also states that principles of the Treaty "other than those set out" by the Treaty Principles Bill "must not be used to interpret an enactment", and clarifies that the Treaty Principles Bill does not apply to the interpretation of a Treaty settlement Act or the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 in relation to historical treaty claims.
Read more:
The bill's champion, ACT's David Seymour, hailed the introduction of the bill in a media release saying the principles of the Treaty "are not going anywhere".
"Either Parliament can define them, or the courts will continue to meddle in this area of critical political and constitutional importance. The purpose of the Treaty Principles Bill is for Parliament to define the principles of the Treaty, provide certainty and clarity, and promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements."
He noted a change made to the earlier version, with the second principle having been narrowed "to provide that the rights of hapū and iwi differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when those rights are agreed to as part of a Treaty settlement. This has occurred because the previous wording was too broad".

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.
He said the Treaty itself would not be changed, just the way it was interpreted in law.

Timeline​

  • Bill introduced to Parliament 7 November
  • Hīkoi protesting the bill begins on 10 November, departing Cape Reinga on the 11th, to arrive at Parliament on 19 November
  • First reading debate on the bill during the week of 11-15 November. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will not be in the country during that reading
  • After first reading, Bill to be sent to select committee for six-month public hearing process
  • After select committee, Bill to be sent for second reading debate in Parliament - where all parties but ACT have promised to vote it down

Kerfuffle over early introduction​

News broke on Tuesday that the bill would be introduced to Parliament this week - a fortnight earlier than had previously been expected.
The change in timing came as the Waitangi Tribunal scrambled to publish the second part of its report on the Bill, and the treaty clause review set out in NZ First's coalition agreement.
It was a scramble because the Tribunal is typically unable to publish material related to government bills once they have been introduced.
Once it had been notified of the changed timing through an official memo from the government, it then informed the lawyers presenting evidence for its report so they could submit all their evidence in time.
Seymour accused the Tribunal of breaking the government's trust over the matter.
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi also condemned the earlier introduction, saying he believed it was aimed at halting the planned hīkoi. (The organisers have said they would not reschedule the hīkoi.)
Seymour said it was "much ado about nothing", however, and the change in date was simply part of normal Parliamentary processes.
That's somewhat backed up by most of the political parties, with Labour's Chris Hipkins saying they would not normally expect to be informed of a change in the date of introduction. The Greens, meanwhile, welcomed having the detail of the bill to scrutinise.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Thursday defended the timing of the bill's introduction, saying he totally disagreed with the suggestion it was shifted to avoid the hīkoi.
"Totally disagree ... we've got a lot of legislation to do between now and Christmas and what we're doing here is when legislation becomes available - in this case it was a couple of weeks earlier, it was drafted, and the legislation's ready to go - we move legislation around all the time, so it's not unusual at all."
Luxon will not be in Parliament today for the bill's official tabling in the Debating Chamber - like other recent prime ministers he does not attend on Thursdays.
He will also not be in Parliament for the First Reading debate set down for next Thursday, as he will be in Peru for the APEC meeting. He will be at Parliament on the week of the planned hīkoi.

Tribunal's findings​

The Tribunal's second report on the bill found that:
  • The Crown's process to develop the Bill has purposefully excluded any consultation with Māori, breaching the principle of partnership, the Crown's good-faith obligations, and the Crown's duty to actively protect Māori rights and interests
  • This policy process is in breach of the principle of good government, as Cabinet has decided to progress the Bill despite it being a policy that is not evidence-based, has not been adequately tested, has not been consulted upon, and fails regulatory standards
  • The proposed content of the Bill does not reflect the texts or meaning of the Treaty/te Tiriti
  • Principle 1 misinterprets the kāwanatanga granted to the Crown in 1840, which is not an unbridled power restrained only by its own sense of what is in the best interests of everyone
  • Cabinet's approval of Principle 2 for introduction in a Bill was found to be a breach of the principles of tino rangatiratanga, kāwanatanga, partnership, and active protection
  • Principle 2, if enacted, would revoke the promises and guarantees the Queen made to Māori in 1840
  • Principle 3 bears no resemblance to the meaning of article 3 and that Cabinet's decision to introduce the principle in a Bill was a breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti principles of partnership, equity, and active protection
  • These breaches caused significant prejudice to Māori
  • Māori would be particularly prejudiced by the extinguishment of tino rangatiratanga in a legal sense if the Bill were to be enacted
  • The new principles would advance the discredited agenda of assimilation, as they are designed to end the distinct status of Māori as the indigenous people of this country
  • Even if the Bill were not enacted, Cabinet's decision to introduce the Bill would prejudice Māori by further damaging the Māori-Crown relationship, and Māori would feel the brunt of the social disorder and division, including through the select committee process.
  • If the Government does not abandon the Bill, the Tribunal recommended that, given the constitutional significance of the issue, the Bill be referred to the Tribunal under section 8(2) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
Seymour told RNZ he had not read the report in full, but he had seen summaries.

"Their criticism is not surprising, in fact it's expected because the Treaty Principles Bill by defining the principles does the job that they've been supposed to do for the last 48 years, so it's not surprising that they resent that job being done by Parliament. Parliament asked them to do it in 1975, and Parliament has the right to say 'Well, if you haven't done a very good job we're going to do it for you'."
He pushed back at the suggestion his bill was not a faithful interpretation.

"I'd just make the argument that any interpretation of the Treaty must be consistent with a liberal democracy and give equal rights to each person that has to live in this country, as the only country they have.

"Their version says that the Treaty is a partnership and that some people are in partnership with the Crown and others are not. Their version is inconsistent with a liberal democratic framework and that's why I think it's time for Parliament to step in and say 'actually we do want to respect the treaty, we'd like to honour the treaty, but in a way that gives equal rights to all because that's how liberal democracy works."

---

REDDIT CRINGE:
https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1gqvnkw/comment/lx1cg4m/?context=8
Redditors are soying all over it. Apparently this is up there with Brady's fifth ring or something (not true). Some chuds are calling it dumb.
1731619030943.png
https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1gqvnkw/comment/lx24a5n/?context=8
We should also have a young congresswoman whose job involves performing ceremonial chimpouts every few weeks. I nominate Sydney Sweeney.
1731619053881.png

https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1gqvnkw/comment/lx1wemh/?context=8
Apparently they're imported and are not a fan of ceremonial tantrums.
1731619080938.png
https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1gqvnkw/comment/lx1pl66/?context=8
https://old.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1gqvnkw/comment/lx22sdf/?context=8
Segregation is when you're asked to behave like a normal person in congress.
1731619109768.png
 
Governments everywhere claim they have complete control of everyone in their respective countries. Stone Age tribesmen are nothing special there.
Reservation Indians have certain privileges that allow them to act outside the scrutiny of the government. It doesn't mean they can do whatever the fuck they want, but Uncle Sam definitely doesn't breathe down their necks as hard as others.

I assumed the Maori have some similar rules where the gov won't fuck with them as hard if they're in their designated tribal zone held together by mud and Haast's eagle bones. Why would I want a gov like NZ to have further control of me anyways? If they continue to go like Australia then things will only get worse.
 
For some history, a LONG way back, the New Zealand government wanted to integrate the Maori population into their wider society and not have them in isolated cultural enclaves.

They made a Treaty that basically said "You can keep your customs and even incorporate that into local government, but you have to obey our national laws over that and you have to treat everyone equal. No tribal preferences"

The Maori basically ignored that and started a bunch of shennanigans in Maori areas where Maori laws and customs are being given preferential treatment over New Zealand laws and customs. And where non-Maori are discriminated against.

New Zealand has been telling them literally for decades to stop that, but the Maori keep on doing it.

They argue that they should be able to declare certain areas as their "Zones" and run them like the Native Americans run their reservations. But that's NEVER been what the Treaty said. They weren't given autonomy or self-governance. Just an "Obey our laws and we'll tolerate your weird customs" agreement.

And there were always portions of the Treaty that said the Treaty could be replaced by something else via parliment (Which it now is). There were specifically portions saying that it WOULD be replaced by something if the Maori weren't holding up their end of the agreement.
Why I have an eerie feeling then that MP Maori might be only 1/64 Maori just like Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren was only 1/64 Native?
This is another problem: almost all modern "Maori" are basically just normies checking a box on the census to get diversity benefits.
 
Could be worse, at least they’re not petrol huffing abbos
Nah mate, Maoris and Islanders are far worse than the Abos. They come to Australia and commit crimes - love raping white women. Crime is all they know, even when they have jobs or play rugby.

At least the Abos who play sport are aiight. Boongs steal shit but their violence is mainly perpetrated against one another.
I know it's a meme on this dumb ass website to say Abos are the lowest tier of monkey, but gypsies are 1000x worse than Abos and Islanders are 100x worse.
(Pajeets are 999x worse than an Abo)

And I say this as a white woman who has lived in Perth and Darwin (where actual Abos are)
 
White people need to do this, but sing something way better while doing some sick county line dancing.

“HEAR MY SONG! MY WORDS OF FREEDOM! FUCK YOU FAT NIGGERSSSSSSSSS!!!! YOUR BMI IS HUGE! YOUR INTELLECT NOT! YOUR TURTLE GOD IS NOT REAAAAALL!! YOUR ISLAND SPIRTS LICK THE INSIDE OF MY ANAL PASSAGE WAY!!”

Maybe then do a sick guitar riff and shove a island butterball child into a garbage can.
 
Why I have an eerie feeling then that MP Maori might be only 1/64 Maori just like Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren was only 1/64 Native?
you're retarded? she'd be the darkest looking 97% white woman i'd ever seen. to get that skin color you need to be at least 25% nonwhite and the facial shape means she's easily a lot closer to 50%.
 
I like the way they screamed at the fat man.
Put the english convicts back on their boats, and let kiwis be screaming cannibalistic weirdos.

TITO TOTINO!

Thriller isn't white, Murderface.

NZ can't fuck with the internet if they go back to being stick hurling tribalists. Lightning wire bad!

white people: Stop being autistic!
Maori: Screaming and stancing.
 
you're retarded? she'd be the darkest looking 97% white woman i'd ever seen. to get that skin color you need to be at least 25% nonwhite and the facial shape means she's easily a lot closer to 50%.
It could have been worse, I could have been sarcastic.
Lol, you can never take people singing in a parliament seriously.
Yeah, but the brawls in Japanese and Taiwanese parliaments are a picnic compared to the South African parliament featuring a brawl in the style of Geraldo and the Jerry Springer show. :story:
 
Nah mate, Maoris and Islanders are far worse than the Abos. They come to Australia and commit crimes - love raping white women. Crime is all they know, even when they have jobs or play rugby.

At least the Abos who play sport are aiight. Boongs steal shit but their violence is mainly perpetrated against one another.
I know it's a meme on this dumb ass website to say Abos are the lowest tier of monkey, but gypsies are 1000x worse than Abos and Islanders are 100x worse.
(Pajeets are 999x worse than an Abo)

And I say this as a white woman who has lived in Perth and Darwin (where actual Abos are)
Mt. hawthorn, Lawley or Subi lady? Cause that’s the only Places I ever went to where the Abos were half decent.
 
Mt. hawthorn, Lawley or Subi lady? Cause that’s the only Places I ever went to where the Abos were half decent.
I lived for a bit in Freo - had more issues with homeless white drunks and tourists.

Lived around Cannington area (2 different suburbs) the longest.
Kept nothing in my car, kept it unlocked so they didn't smash windows.

Don't get me wrong, Abos aren't great to have around.
But Islanders, gypsies, and pajeets are worse.
 
Last edited:
I know this is parliamentary faggotry but don't the Kiwis have a sergeant-at-arms to remove people engaged in disruptive behavior that violates the legislature's rules of order?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Halo Cipher
I assumed the Maori have some similar rules where the gov won't fuck with them as hard if they're in their designated tribal zone held together by mud and Haast's eagle bones. Why would I want a gov like NZ to have further control of me anyways? If they continue to go like Australia then things will only get worse.
Australia didn't really go down the path of reservations, though in retrospect things might've been better if it did. There was a referendum recently on creating an unelected group of Abos who would act as representatives of Abo interests to government with some poorly defined political powers but it failed miserably. Abos have no formal special legal zones but they do run amok in a lot of regional towns, these places basically being lawless shitholes due to totally non existent policing and white people having no real ability to defend themselves lest they get sent to the rape dungeon by some piece of shit magistrate.

My understanding is NZ is further down the rabbithole of handing over unchecked power to Maoris. Personally I'd rather all Maoris deported and Abos can continue to live in Australia as Maoris are incredibly violent and physically strong. Abos have weak hearts, skinny legs and are usually too inebriated to do anything except exercise their immunity from all consequences by stealing all your shit.
I lived for a bit in Freo - had more issues with homeless white drunks and tourists.
Freo fucking tent city situation was abominable. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-city-government-prepares-dismantle-camp.html

East Perth is really bad for hobos, there's a free food van that sets up alongside Wellington St and you'll see all the meth ghouls from Hay St congregate there whenever it shows up.
Lived around Cannington area (2 different suburbs) the longest.
Worst one I can think of from personal experience is Langford. Total shithole with constant robberies.
 
Back