Defending the Indefensible.

Responses to the national hui, defiant or disenchanted.

Look at you now, you're disenchanted
Can't believe how things can change
Take a little out of life and things get strange
And now you find the wishes you were granted
Things you thought were in your hands
Have slipped away
How much can you withstand?

Thanks to all who read my newsletter yesterday, on the national hui which took place over the weekend. Today I’d like to look at how MPs have responded to that event, and to the leaked Ministry of Justice document warning that ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill is at odds with both the spirit and the text of the Treaty.

Let’s start at the top with David Seymour, the architect of the animosity many are feeling towards the coalition. Sure National and NZ First might be playing to the small minded bigots, the talkback radio types mourning the perceived loss of their pakeha privilege, but ACT is the real thing.

Their supporters don’t give a stuff, I’m sure, about the names of government departments or what version of history is taught in our public schools.

They’re no doubt more interested in the financial advantages that can be had through not having Māori at the table, and the lower taxes required if we just assume everyone is equal and we don’t need to pay for social programmes to address things they’d prefer to pretend don’t exist.

David Seymour. Image: The Post.

Asked why he hadn’t attended the Hui, Seymour explained to Newshub, “basically because you don't have to go to every single event that happens in New Zealand.” According to Newshub “Seymour was at an Auckland festival on Sunday afternoon celebrating the opening of a temple in India.”

Look, I don’t wish to disparage the celebrations of another group but I can’t help thinking that events further down State Highway One were rather more significant to this nation. Although perhaps not such a good opportunity for ACT to attract votes.

In an extraordinary claim Seymour said the new Government was trying to unify New Zealand. He said, “I'm sick and tired of people being categorised by questions like Newshub's right now - 'Do I think Māori are happy?'”

Spoiler Alert David. They’re not.

He tried to make light of the size of the gathering. “So 10,000 people, what exactly is that - 0.02 percent of the New Zealand population?” Hmm, how to put that in terms David would understand?

Well it’s twice as many people as voted for ACT in Epsom at the election. Or to put it another way, half as many as National got in that electorate.

Obscure election fact - while Seymour won the Epsom electorate when you look at the party vote ACT only received a quarter of the votes National did. Not only that, but ACT received fewer party votes in the electorate than either Labour or the Greens!

I’ve seen a lot of people question where ACT get off pushing their extreme agenda when they only received one in twelve votes at the election. Seriously Seymour, you didn’t even get a mandate in Epsom!

Don’t you find that extraordinary? That the Greens received more party votes in Epsom, than ACT did?

Brooke van Velden. Image: TVNZ.

There was an interview on Breakfast with ACT deputy Brooke van Velden and the Green Party’s Chlöe Swarbrick. The first question asked Brooke how concerned she was that the Ministry of Justice was flagging serious concerns over ACT’s proposed legislation?

She replied that “what ACT is saying is that we need to have a discussion, an honest, open, adult discussion about what the treatment means in modern New Zealand.” Which was an interesting, somewhat odorous, claim from a party who chose not to turn up to the conversation.

Brooke said she wasn’t concerned at all by the fact that the people who’d written the advice for the government on the bill were not very happy with it. She blathered on in what sounded a very rehearsed, emotionless, speech on the inclusivity of the process and the desire to unite people.

Chlöe looked as if she needed a new babel fish. Either that or her expression indicated she thought Brooke was speaking utter nonsense.

Image: TVNZ.

Meanwhile they showed an earlier interview with NZ First heir apparent, Shane Jones. Who has described the Hui as a “monumental moan-session”, which sounds like a review of one of the movies he used to rent on the taxpayer’s coin.

Quite believably the great Kumara of the North said he didn’t even know the document existed. He referred to it, the document prepared by the Ministry of Justice, as slightly delusional.

Chlöe looked even more confused by this further invitation into the alternate reality the coalition appears to operate within. Shane looked like either he might’ve fallen asleep in the hot sun yesterday, or that he was overdue for an intervention.

Shane Jones. Image: TVNZ.

Brooke, who seems to have more issues with leaks than monolithic cladding, said she wasn’t concerned that her coalition partners hadn’t seen it, because she hadn’t either.

Chlöe described the document as “free and frank advice from the Ministry of Justice officials, making it abundantly clear that the government hasn’t undertaken any consultation with the most impacted communities here those being iwi Māori.” Oops.

“We have seen massive mobilisation. 10,000 at the Hui at the weekend as called for by the Māori King, demonstrating that there is a real want actually for this constitutional conversation the ACT party are saying they want to see happen, just not in the incredibly reductive and prescriptive way that this Treaty Principles Bill is moving forward.

Because what that bill seeks to do is to preemptively define what those principles are, as the advice says, in complete contravention of the text of the treaty as well as the principles established by thirty five years of jurisprudence. As well as potentially in contravention of our international obligations.

So frankly it’s a mess and New Zealanders should expect better from our government when it comes to leading in this space and I would’ve expected that the parties who have been calling for this unity, and calling for this conversation, would’ve turned up to the conversation over the weekend.”

Hallelujah! Finally somebody talking some sense! Brooke did not look best pleased.

Image: TVNZ.

Sometimes I feel a bit sorry for people appearing on interviews with Chlöe, they don’t come away looking like the smartest person in the room. Now, there are many highly intelligent people involved in opposing the government on this, but in terms of this room - Chlöe was in another class.

The wasted time, the money spent
A sign that reads 'For Sale or Rent'
And everything is at a standstill
And where's someone who'll be on hand till
You're no longer disenchanted
Thinking everything is wrong?
You know you're not the only one to wait so long
I wonder, can you try again?
Are you that strong?

The interviewer shifted the conversation to talk about Golriz Ghahraman, asking how she was doing. Chlöe simply said “this is a deeply sad and awful situation and I’m not going to comment on the details of that case”, going on to describe that it would be inappropriate for her to do so given that it’s currently with the police.

She did however comment on the general situation saying “our parliament is not an environment that is conducive to getting the best out of people. But I think more so than that the kind of sound bite media environment and landscape that all of us exist in, particularly when you add on social media to that, is such that I think politicians are frequently treated as concepts not as human beings who are fallible, who have feelings, and are capable of making mistakes and potentially coming back from those.”

Hallelujah! Again!

Apologies for the lengthy quotes I find it disenchanting that people such as Shane and Brooke are ministers in this government, but someone as intelligent and compassionate as Chlöe is on the opposition benches.

Make her the Prime Minister already, for goodness sake. Aotearoa would be so much better off than under this lot.

Image: TVNZ.

Meanwhile Brooke had the back of those who’ve spewed their vitriol at people like Golriz on social media. She smiled saying that parliament is by its nature a stressful place, but her bigger concern seemed to be on the degree to which parliamentarians control aspects of people’s lives.

She said there was a lot of emotion that would go into people knowing that the government’s decisions affect their lives. Brooke said she completely understands why people have so much emotion, might take to social media or email MPs, and she doesn’t want to see us getting to a point where we restrict access and the ability to talk to politicians.

So there you go folks. If you’re the kind of person that likes to message a female MP saying you’re going to rape and murder them. Or perhaps send communications to the Prime Minister of the time saying you’re going to eat her child. That’s all fine and dandy. It’s part of democracy the ACT way, so fill your boots.

The interviewer wryly noted to Brooke at the end of the interview that she was sure she’d be getting plenty of feedback this year.

That’s not really the point though is it? What a despicable response to the mental health issues of a former fellow MP, likely at least partly brought about by bullying and threatening behaviour, defending the indefensible.

Just as ACT are doing with the Treaty Principles Bill. That seems pretty damn indefensible to me too.

---

Usually this newsletter would’ve contained a paywall but it’s free to all thanks to the generosity of subscribers who’ve paid a bit more so others can read these too. You’re most welcome to share it however you’d like.

If you’re in a position where you could contribute $7.99 per month, or $85 for a year, to help fund Nick’s Kōrero. Or if you’d simply like to join the mailing list. Then please click “subscribe now” for those options. 🙂

---

In case you didn’t recognise the lyrics above, they’re from this beautiful song, for which no video or live clip seems to exist. Best just concentrate on the music.