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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
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
 
I'd rather listen to that than filibustering and it's a more cultured way of disrupting a bill than the usual method employed by the Japanese and Taiwanese representatives:
Au contraire, politicians throwing themselves into a brawl is far better than performative blathering -- whatever the language may be.
Don't like a bill? Willing to take some bruises to prove it? Very cool!
Don't like a bill? Going to bitch and moan using funny sounds? Back to the kids table.
 
Filibuster in style. If Canada had war chants they'd be going on nonstop in our government until banned
 
  • Like
Reactions: mofu mofo
Why on Earth did those bleeding-heart British explorers let these cannibalistic savages live?
Jesus Christ how many genocides did you expect us to commit for fuck's sake??

English genocided the Welsh, the Irish, the Scots. Went to America, did some genociding. Went to Canada, loads of genociding. Went to Africa, shitload of genociding. Went to India and Pakistan and other brown nations, widespread genociding. Went around Burma and Ceylon and Hong Kong, genocide. Went to North Africa and the Middle East, plenty genociding. Went to Australia, genocided many cunts. By the time the butcher's apron got to New Zealand the British were fucking tired from all the genocide. Have you fuckers conquered half the world and slaughtered its natives as you went? No. You fuckers haven't even managed to invade Russia and you can see it from your houses. You let the South Americans genocide themselves when even the Spanish were capable of huge, bigly genocide there. Fuck Cortes, you could have genocided the whole fucking continent by now if you'd pulled your finger out.

The English were fucking tired by the time they got around to genocide the Maori so a reasonable amount of genocide and a treaty seemed fair enough. You can't keep going full King Leopold on the natives everywhere you go, the bayonets start to rust.
 
Oh damn. That would have sucked.
I was in Perth before this and then recently last year for a visit.

Freo is so nice. I wanted to stay there the whole time but the rent become absolutely fucked.
I'm surprised the Air BnB peeps didn't pay for the bulldozers themselves.

Boongs and tents, name a better duo:
Worst one I can think of from personal experience is Langford. Total shithole with constant robberies.
Lol I had a friend living in Thornlie and that could get bad for cars being broken into.

Jesus Christ how many genocides did you expect us to commit for fuck's sake??
WOULD IT HAVE KILLED YOU TO HAVE FINISHED THE FUCKING JOB ON ONE OCCASION?

Such a half arsed effort from you Poms!
Every single one of the people's listed had survivors.
Embarrassing tbqh
 
The English were fucking tired by the time they got around to genocide the Maori so a reasonable amount of genocide and a treaty seemed fair enough. You can't keep going full King Leopold on the natives everywhere you go, the bayonets start to rust.
Nah, I got a better punishment for the Maoris than genocide. You know how you deal with and get rid the Maoris? You do it in a classical American style. You Hollywood the shit out of them. You make them so incredibly cringey that they won't want to be Maori. You need to turn Maori culture into a fucking circus carnival so embarrassing that none of these shit stains would ever dare utter their Island origins ever again. I'm talking discounted flight rounds to New Zealand to promote tourism to bring as many white people as possible. And as part of a "cultural enrichment program" to keep their privileged status, we force the Maoris to teach the Haka to white folk. Why? Because these joggers love to pretend to be niggers and the only thing more infuriating to a culturally privileged nigger is to have to share it with white folk. We take the Haka and put it into fucking FortNite. We make Disney do a movie about the Maori people and we make it as cringey as humanly possible. No, not 2020 Woke Disney, I'm talking 2010 Broken Disney. We make this absolute shit. Then we spin it off into a TV series. We drag these Maori people through the fucking shitswamp that is Hollywood and humiliate, emasculate, and erode everything about their culture until they're embarrassed to show their faces. We reduce their culture to the most rudimentary things possible and make it so uncool, their children dare not ever learn anything about it. That's how you deal with uppity faggots like the Maoris. Make them want to neck themselves. Put them in reed skirts, make them do their stupid fucking bola dances wit light up balls and flashing skirts. Humiliate the ever loving fuck out of them. Genocide might be fun, but tainting an entire legacy is even juicier.

If you don't believe me that this would work, Maori's are half the reason we don't have Bionicles anymore.
 
Last edited:
>Be natives

>Get angry about political bill, as it invokes aspects of civilization beyond living in mud huts

>Make war chants and perform rain dances in front of congress to express your disapproval

>Be shocked when people don’t take you seriously and point out that you’re just acting like spear-chucking savages
 
Should of kept Jake around to tell her to make some damn eggs.

Based Maori have the New Zealand First Party and Winston Peters. That said, Polynesians in majority white societies are remarkably susceptible to libshit mindrot.
I think the issue is that they don’t have any records of how retarded some of their society was and hate anyone who assimilated or found a niche with the new order. They fall for the enlighten savage bullshit rather than taking pride in the fact that they were a pretty advanced civilization for how they were limited by resources.

Hawaiians still idolize that retarded princess who tried to dissolve their government and re-establish an absolute monarchy because Grover Cleveland felt empathetic towards her. They ignore that contemporary Hawaiians at large didn’t like her (Lili I believe) and were aware that they were likely to be annexed by either the US, Japan, the UK, or the Netherlands. Japan was ready to send in their Navy to pacify the island and project their citizens. The US went I. As a favor to the UK and Japan.
 
Why on Earth did those bleeding-heart British explorers let these cannibalistic savages live?
The honest answer is that those Brits probably didn't anticipate that their descendants would pussy out and not keep them in line with force if necessary. It's like Chesterton's Fence applied to race, people forgot why they were keeping the boot on their neck and though that'd be grateful when it went away. Forgetting that the White Man's Burden is to be hated for bringing civilization to the savages.
 
Why on Earth did those bleeding-heart British explorers let these cannibalistic savages live?
This is a big piece of it. Anglican missionaries. It was okay for a while. The land wars across the early decades are interesting reading.


The New Zealand subreddit is chimping as well. Worth a look.

Based Maori have the New Zealand First Party and Winston Peters. That said, Polynesians in majority white societies are remarkably susceptible to libshit mindrot.
@OrangeJuliusEvola they don't like Winston because he's a race traitor and tells them to stop being racially divisive.
 
Last edited:
Nah, I got a better punishment for the Maoris than genocide. You know how you deal with and get rid the Maoris? You do it in a classical American style. You Hollywood the shit out of them. You make them so incredibly cringey that they won't want to be Maori. You need to turn Maori culture into a fucking circus carnival so embarrassing that none of these shit stains would ever dare utter their Island origins ever again. I'm talking discounted flight rounds to New Zealand to promote tourism to bring as many white people as possible. And as part of a "cultural enrichment program" to keep their privileged status, we force the Maoris to teach the Haka to white folk. Why? Because these joggers love to pretend to be niggers and the only thing more infuriating to a culturally privileged nigger is to have to share it with white folk. We take the Haka and put it into fucking FortNite. We make Disney do a movie about the Maori people and we make it as cringey as humanly possible. No, not 2020 Woke Disney, I'm talking 2010 Broken Disney. We make this absolute shit. Then we spin it off into a TV series. We drag these Maori people through the fucking shitswamp that is Hollywood and humiliate, emasculate, and erode everything about their culture until they're embarrassed to show their faces. We reduce their culture to the most rudimentary things possible and make it so uncool, their children dare not ever learn anything about it. That's how you deal with uppity faggots like the Maoris. Make them want to neck themselves. Put them in reed skirts, make them do their stupid fucking bola dances wit light up balls and flashing skirts. Humiliate the ever loving fuck out of them. Genocide might be fun, but tainting an entire legacy is even juicier.
Eh, us Hawaiians survived decades of that shit. Hell, for awhile it was a good way to make a living. You do your cringe shit down in Waikiki for the tourists then you go home and do the authentic stuff for yourself. Anyways the Maori ain't as cute as us or the Tahitians because those motherfuckers hit the Malthusian wall early and hard after eating all the megafauna and not having much of a workable crop package or fishing technology and techniques for a temperate climate.

I think the issue is that they don’t have any records of how retarded some of their society was and hate anyone who assimilated or found a niche with the new order. They fall for the enlighten savage bullshit rather than taking pride in the fact that they were a pretty advanced civilization for how they were limited by resources.

Hawaiians still idolize that retarded princess who tried to dissolve their government and re-establish an absolute monarchy because Grover Cleveland felt empathetic towards her. They ignore that contemporary Hawaiians at large didn’t like her (Lili I believe) and were aware that they were likely to be annexed by either the US, Japan, the UK, or the Netherlands. Japan was ready to send in their Navy to pacify the island and project their citizens. The US went I. As a favor to the UK and Japan.
The funny thing was, at least for Hawaii, is that we adapted Christianity and literacy en masse and fairly early, so we have a pretty decent record of how things were in the before times compared to most of Polynesia because people were able to write it down before it was lost.

Also, you're somewhat wrong. For the most part, ethnic Hawaiians had strong respect for the monarchy and did not wish to see it replaced or sovereignty abrogated. However by the 1890s we were already a minority in our own land. They were aware of the precarious diplomatic nature of the Kingdom, and sought multiple times to obtain either a protectorate by the UK under similar terms to that which Tonga received, or a royal marriage to the Japanese monarchy. In short, if we were going to be colonized, let it be by a monarchy with a noble class instead of a Republic like America or France which would eliminate such traditions. That was the thinking.

That said, the Caucasians in Hawaii were predominantly of American descent and wished to gain the economic benefit of having the burgeoning sugar industry under the American aegis, and America had great interest in Pearl Harbor as a coaling station and military base. And the rest, as they say, is history.

they don't like Winston because he's a race traitor and tells them to stop being racially divisive.
Yeah, I get that a lot myself too in my personal life. Frankly I like Peters. The default position of all natives should be no more fucking immigration. Full stop. Everything else is negotiable. But nope, they'd rather all fucking LARP and do performative useless bullshit. I could tell those Maori about what happens when you're priced off your own land because you let the entire world in, and point to why the currently independent Polynesian nations like Tonga and Samoa have strict citizenship and descent laws for property ownership. Hell, the Fijians can't stop pogroming the Jeets there because they've figured out how the game is played. Once you're the minority, you lose, unless you're a merchant minority, the most notable of which being ((the you know who)), then you hang like a tick off the body politic.
 
Post colonisation native groups are so cringe and entitled.

This goes for all of them: Y'all lost the war. Be happy and grateful for whatever scraps your betters are willing to toss off the table at you. Simple as.
 
The honest answer is that those Brits probably didn't anticipate that their descendants would pussy out and not keep them in line with force if necessary.
they lacked troops so they had to use diplomacy.
their go to mercs were fighting each and they didnt had enough of their own good troops-
This goes for all of them: Y'all lost the war. Be happy and grateful for whatever scraps your betters are willing to toss off the table at you. Simple as.
But they didnt lost a War, they signed the treaty to keep the french out.
They were the only savages smart enough to use european weapons and european tactics and the Brits never really won against them.
 
Back