November 13, 2024 • 15 mins
David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill was introduced to Parliament last week – with its first reading debate scheduled for today.
The bill has sparked fierce criticism since it was included as part of National and Act’s coalition agreement last year.
Protests are expected outside Parliament today, while thousands of marchers protesting Government policies affecting Maori crossed the Auckland Harbour Bridge yesterday as part of a hikoi to Parliament.
So, now that we’ve actually seen the Bill, what’s in it, and what are the chances of it actually getting across the line?
Today on The Front Page, Newstalk ZB political editor Jason Walls joins us to discuss one of the most contentious Government bills in recent memory.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kyoda.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. David Seymour's
Treaty Principal's Bill was introduced to Parliament last week, with
its first reading debate scheduled for today. The bill has
sparked fierce criticism since it was included as part of
(00:29):
National and Acts coalition agreement last year. Protests are expected
outside Parliament today, while thousands of March's protesting government policies
affecting Moldy crossed the Auckland Harbor Bridge yesterday as part
of a hiccoy to Parliament. So, now that we've actually
(00:50):
seen the bill, what's in it and what exactly are
the chances of it getting across the line? Today? On
the Front Page, NEWSTALKZ that Be Political editor Jason Wolls
joins us to discuss one of the most contentious government
bills in recent memory. First off, Jason, can you tell
(01:15):
me about the Treaty Principle's Bill? What actually is it?
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Well, it's an interesting question, and I think that a
lot of what is the bill has essentially been a
little bit lost in some of the protests around the
bill basically it does what it says on the ten
or that's what it wants to do, which is clarify
the principles of the Treaty of Waypungi in law. Because
at the moment the act Party argues, you know, these
these principles have never been fully defined in law, and
(01:42):
there is so much of New Zealand law that actually
does hinge on what happens around the treaty. So having
something that clarifies and really actually gives a bit of
a bit more of a firm definition as to what
these principles are, they, the act Party argues, is something
that would be beneficial to all New Zealanders.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Right, So it seems like the phrase, in particular, in
the best interests of everyone is the stickler here, right, Well.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
I mean everything is the stickler here, right. I think
that the Act Party, they've been on this bill, and
we wanted to talk about it for quite some time
in me even before it was in the Coalition agreement.
And so they will argue that this is not divisive
because this is actually certainly that benefits everybody across the country,
every New Zealander. Now, of course you've got tea Party Marti,
(02:28):
the Greens, Labor. I mean, look at the way that
Luckson talks even maybe National at some stage saying that
it is a divisive bill because it does essentially do
that create division. But the act Party will, as they
have been and continue to do so, have pushed back
on that rather strongly.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
I think one of my major questions Jason is just
as simple, why why is David Seymour pushing for this
for so long?
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Well, I mean you can be cynical about this, and
I will be cynical because it's my job. Is it's
all about politics, right? I mean you can say yes,
David Seymour definitely believes in this bill, His members believe
in this bill, his supporters believe in this bill, and
they think that it should become law. But David Seymour
knows that it's not going to become law, at least
not in this term of parliament. So you can cynically
(03:13):
look at this and say what it's doing is it's
almost now a bit of early advertisement for the twenty
twenty sixth election. He is looking to make a lot
of noise about this bill as to why it's only
the act Party are the only ones willing to put
a piece of legislation like this before the House. In fact,
he's actually throw a National under the bus a little
(03:33):
bit with this in his rhetoric. I mean he said
the other day that the National Party aren't prepared to
tackle the hard issues. This would be a textbook example
of a hard issue that he's talking about. So he
can take this to the next election come twenty twenty
six and say it was the ACT Party who the
only ones that were actually keen on having a proper
debate about this piece of legislation, and that he's hoping
(03:56):
that there will be a lot of National Party supporters
that will say we'll hang on a second, right, the
Nats didn't have the stomach to go after something like this,
It was only Acted that did. And there'll be more people,
more voters that that'll flock to the Act Party. Then
in turn he can come back and use it as
a coalition backstop or a coalition bottom line again and say, well,
(04:17):
if whoever I'm in a coalition with has to pass
this to the third reading and make it into law.
So there is method to what some people have described
as David Seymour's madness here.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yeah, what are the chances of this bill actually gaining
legs really none?
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Right?
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Well, I mean it's not going to pass into it's
not going to pass into law. That's almost for certain
that this stage. I mean, David Seymour has been quite
forthright in his defense of the bill, saying that it's
not actually up to the politicians, it's up to the voters.
And if voters send the National Party a message saying
that we actually do support this bill, then the National
Party will be back lickety split and there'll be the
(04:51):
one supporting this bill and it'll be progressing into law.
I can't see that happening. Just how full fullheartedly Chris
Luxon has nailed his colors to the mask on this
one and saying that the Nats have absolutely no business
supporting this at the second reading, and the fact that
you can listen to how his language has transformed since
the bill was first actually brought onto the public debate.
(05:15):
He started off by saying essentially, oh, we'll support it
in the first reading, but we're not sure about what's
happening in the second reading, or he was a little
bit sort of wholehum about what it will support it
to the Select Committee and then we'll see what happens
after that. And then more and more pressure that was
building on him, his language changed to the point where
he stood up in the House and was talking about
how the National Party won't support this, we don't like it.
(05:38):
We didn't get everything that we wanted when it came
to the coalition agreement. Neither did the act Party. And
this is just the nature of MMP.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Our view is that we have not supported this bill
from the very beginning. We see no need for it.
It's not some of the National Party will be supporting
from here. So we're going to vote it down in
the second reading. And I suspect if the opposition parties
do the same and it won't be a law.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
So Chris Luxon can't talk a big game like this
and then decide that he's going to turn around and
support this in second reading. Again, all bets are off
when it comes to a new coalition agreement. If the
act Party can canvas enough support to get a big
chunk of the NAT's voters, they can use this as
a coalition bottom line the next time around. But in
(06:24):
terms of looking at this term of government, in terms
of looking at the second reading in the House. It's
not going anywhere and it will be voted down.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
The bill was introduced to Parliament earlier than expected, which
has added to the contention around this. Why was it
brought forward?
Speaker 3 (06:38):
Oh, we don't know. I mean, that's the thing. David
Seymour says, things like this is just parliament. Bills move
around every once in a while, and he's been very
clear that the Waikangi Tribunal were the ones that demanded
a date for this bill to be tabled. But that
doesn't actually always happen. I mean, things do move around
in Parliament. I mean we never really cover when things
are being tabled in the House because it's just something
(06:59):
that we as pressed don't really pay that much attention to.
We pay attention to the first reading, a little bit,
the second reading and then definitely the third reading. But
when a bill is tabled, it's really not all that
exciting because when you're a government and you table a bill,
we already know that that bill is essentially as good
as past because you are the government, you have the
(07:19):
votes in the House, and if you introduce a bill,
it means that bill is going to be come out
the other side of the third reading and it's going
to have the votes to get through. Hence why it's
not usually something that we pay attention to. So David
Seymore might be right. These things might move around and
we just don't really know enough about them and we
don't really concentrate enough on that aspect of it. But
on the other hand, you know, it's a very contentious
(07:41):
piece of legislation. It's timing of which is very newsworthy.
I mean, you've only got to look at the timings
of the hikoya across the country to work that one out,
and as well as the fact that the Prime Minister
and his Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters are both going
to be out of the country when this bill has
its reading.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
The latest Waitangi Tribunal report on the policy warned whether
the bill was actually enacted or not, its impacts will
not fade for a long time. So I guess is
that Seymour's main goal here to keep that conversation going
because it's not going to get through and he just
wants to keep the buzz alive.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I guess the buzz alive. I mean that makes it's
a good way of putting it. I mean the buzz
in this sense could be very much seen as the
Select committee process once. I mean, if you look at
the Coalition agreement, it says the National Party will support
the treaty's principles through its first reading into the Select
Committee process, meaning that it will be looked at by
a Select committee. Select Committee, of course, is a cross
(08:50):
party group of MPs that scrutinize legislation to see how
they can be improved on, and they take various different
public soundings on it as well. It's very common for
bills to be submitted on In fact the Press Gallery
I'm also the Press Gallery chair as well as zeb's
political editor. We are currently submitting on the Parliament Bill
because we think that people should be able to oia
(09:12):
parliamentary services. So as part of that submission we go
along to the Select Committee and they ask us questions
and we respond in kind, and we ask them questions
and they respond in kind. It's part of the submission
process and it's a cornerstone of New Zealand's democratic process.
So some of the concerns from the likes of the
Waikongi Tribunal have been that this will just be a
(09:33):
vehicle for people that have racist intents to platform them
and what they say and use that as a way
of talking down this bill. David Seymour will say that
this is an opportunity for people that want the bill
and have serious reasons behind why they think it should pass,
to have the ability to speak to MPs and the
media can come along and listen as well and get
(09:54):
those arguments across. So this bill, whether David Seymour likes
it or not, and I do think he probably would
like it, is going to be on the political agenda
for quite some time after the first reading when that
comes up later today.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
So you've already mentioned this, But the hikoy taking place
at the moment, it's not only about the Treaty Principal's Bill, right,
So the Hikoy.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Is at its heart a protest against the Treaty Principal's Bill,
and that has been evident from the start. However, it
is also a vehicle for other people to air their
grievances against the government, specifically, I would say to do
with Mardi issues. I mean Tipati Marti. One of the
things that they've done incredibly well since they've been in
Parliament is they've been able to mobilize and activate their
(10:38):
base to get out and be very vocal against various
different government policies that they think are anti Mahdi. For example,
you know, the changing the names of the various different ministries,
not changing the names, just having the English name first
and the today or name second rather than the other
way around. So there are a bunch of different things
that people are protesting about. This will be the main
(10:59):
one and the vehicle in which that they will bring
this Hikhoi to Parliament. I would say that if you're
looking at all the or the controversial issues that the
government has put through or is deciding whether to put through,
is this the case with the treaty's principal bill, I
would say this is probably the one that has courted
the most controversy. So it makes sense that that is
the main thrust of the Hikoi when it arrives.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I think you made a really good point there saying
that Tapatimordi has done an excellent job of mobilizing their supporters,
because they absolutely have. What about on the other end
of the spectrum, Is there anybody on the other side
of the discussion that is quite vocal about this?
Speaker 3 (11:36):
David Seymour is the champion on the other side, and
he is alone. He's a long wolf in this fight
in terms of the fact that he doesn't have the
support of Chris lux and he doesn't have the support
of Winston Peters, and there's nobody that's really been standing
up to add their support to this bill. But that's
okay for David Seymour because that would distract from the
fact that is the ACT Party who are the ones
(11:57):
that are pushing this bill through. He wants people to
see that it's him and the ACT Party that are
ones that are standing up for their rights in terms
of the Treaty's Principals Bill. So he'll be happy with
the fact that it's just him because he gets all
the attention over this, and he will what he's been
doing is he's been talking about the opposition to the bill,
but you'll often you'll you'll see as well that he's
(12:17):
been almost targeting, well not even almost, he has been
targeting the media and talking about the fact that it's
been incredibly biased in its coverage. You can the ACT
Party in David Seymour's Facebook and social media pages are
littered with what they see as example of media bias.
So all he needs to do is just drum up
enough anti media supports, drum up enough anti anti party Marti,
(12:40):
anti labor support, so all the focus comes back to him,
so that his would be supporters would be saying, well,
this is our guy for the next election.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
So there have been protests, you know across the country.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
There's an ecoy that's coming down to Wellington. Is that
not a sign that there is division in what the
skill is doing.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
No, it's a sign that some people oppose it. Actually,
they were counted seventeen people outside Parliament and I watched
your news look, which was zoomed on one or two
people to make it look as though it was bigger
than it really was.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
You mentioned that this could have a good role on effect,
taking some of those National supporters who were on the
fence and moving them over to ACT. But what about
the opposition parties? Have they benefited from the backlash to
the bill at all? Do you reckon that they're going
to scoop up some of those act or even labouring
Green voters with them not going ahead and not backing
David Seymour on this.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
They have a different problem on the other side of
the political aisle, and that is that if the focus
of the Treaty Principal's bill proponents is well and truly
David Seymour, the opponents should be the leader of the opposition,
which is Chris Hopkins. It's not it's te Pati Marti,
it's Debbie Nadi were Packer, and it's an Alki Waitity.
And that is because they are so good at the mobilization.
(13:59):
I mean, they're not in the house very often, they
neglect that part of the job, but they do get
out amongst the country all the time, and that's the
way that they communicate to their base. It's a new
way of doing things, and I think it's ruffled a
few of the sort of the Stormwart's sort of parliamentary
figures around here. But the problem with that is that
(14:20):
they're the focus here and it means that I think
that they're more likely to get votes from this than
the Labor Party will. And you'll remember that at its
heart here there is they might look quite close allies,
but there is a conflict between Tea Party Marty and
the Labor Party. In terms of those seven Marty seats
at the moment, six of those are to Tea Party
Madi and their vote outside those seats is just about
(14:42):
around about three percent. Whereas the Labor Party, yes, they
didn't have a very good election result, but they lost
all of those Marty seats bar one that was held
by Auti Waitity in the twenty twenty election. So there
is a bit of a battle between them going on
because without those seven seats, or without any of those seats,
Tea Party Marty wouldn't be in Parliament and Labor desperately
(15:03):
wants them back, and at this stage Tea Party Marty
is probably going to win. They might even get a
clean suite, and they know that it's because of issues
like this that they are able to do a lot
better at than the Labor Party.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Thanks for joining us, Jason, no problem at all. That's
it for this episode of The Front Page. You can
read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at
enzied Herald dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills Richard Martin as sound engineer slash producer.
(15:35):
I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio
or wherever you get your podcasts and tune in tomorrow
for another look behind the headlines,
Kyoda.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. David Seymour's
Treaty Principal's Bill was introduced to Parliament last week, with
its first reading debate scheduled for today. The bill has
sparked fierce criticism since it was included as part of
(00:29):
National and Acts coalition agreement last year. Protests are expected
outside Parliament today, while thousands of March's protesting government policies
affecting Moldy crossed the Auckland Harbor Bridge yesterday as part
of a hiccoy to Parliament. So, now that we've actually
(00:50):
seen the bill, what's in it and what exactly are
the chances of it getting across the line? Today? On
the Front Page, NEWSTALKZ that Be Political editor Jason Wolls
joins us to discuss one of the most contentious government
bills in recent memory. First off, Jason, can you tell
(01:15):
me about the Treaty Principle's Bill? What actually is it?
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Well, it's an interesting question, and I think that a
lot of what is the bill has essentially been a
little bit lost in some of the protests around the
bill basically it does what it says on the ten
or that's what it wants to do, which is clarify
the principles of the Treaty of Waypungi in law. Because
at the moment the act Party argues, you know, these
these principles have never been fully defined in law, and
(01:42):
there is so much of New Zealand law that actually
does hinge on what happens around the treaty. So having
something that clarifies and really actually gives a bit of
a bit more of a firm definition as to what
these principles are, they, the act Party argues, is something
that would be beneficial to all New Zealanders.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Right, So it seems like the phrase, in particular, in
the best interests of everyone is the stickler here, right, Well.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
I mean everything is the stickler here, right. I think
that the Act Party, they've been on this bill, and
we wanted to talk about it for quite some time
in me even before it was in the Coalition agreement.
And so they will argue that this is not divisive
because this is actually certainly that benefits everybody across the country,
every New Zealander. Now, of course you've got tea Party Marti,
(02:28):
the Greens, Labor. I mean, look at the way that
Luckson talks even maybe National at some stage saying that
it is a divisive bill because it does essentially do
that create division. But the act Party will, as they
have been and continue to do so, have pushed back
on that rather strongly.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
I think one of my major questions Jason is just
as simple, why why is David Seymour pushing for this
for so long?
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Well, I mean you can be cynical about this, and
I will be cynical because it's my job. Is it's
all about politics, right? I mean you can say yes,
David Seymour definitely believes in this bill, His members believe
in this bill, his supporters believe in this bill, and
they think that it should become law. But David Seymour
knows that it's not going to become law, at least
not in this term of parliament. So you can cynically
(03:13):
look at this and say what it's doing is it's
almost now a bit of early advertisement for the twenty
twenty sixth election. He is looking to make a lot
of noise about this bill as to why it's only
the act Party are the only ones willing to put
a piece of legislation like this before the House. In fact,
he's actually throw a National under the bus a little
(03:33):
bit with this in his rhetoric. I mean he said
the other day that the National Party aren't prepared to
tackle the hard issues. This would be a textbook example
of a hard issue that he's talking about. So he
can take this to the next election come twenty twenty
six and say it was the ACT Party who the
only ones that were actually keen on having a proper
debate about this piece of legislation, and that he's hoping
(03:56):
that there will be a lot of National Party supporters
that will say we'll hang on a second, right, the
Nats didn't have the stomach to go after something like this,
It was only Acted that did. And there'll be more people,
more voters that that'll flock to the Act Party. Then
in turn he can come back and use it as
a coalition backstop or a coalition bottom line again and say, well,
(04:17):
if whoever I'm in a coalition with has to pass
this to the third reading and make it into law.
So there is method to what some people have described
as David Seymour's madness here.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yeah, what are the chances of this bill actually gaining
legs really none?
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Right?
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Well, I mean it's not going to pass into it's
not going to pass into law. That's almost for certain
that this stage. I mean, David Seymour has been quite
forthright in his defense of the bill, saying that it's
not actually up to the politicians, it's up to the voters.
And if voters send the National Party a message saying
that we actually do support this bill, then the National
Party will be back lickety split and there'll be the
(04:51):
one supporting this bill and it'll be progressing into law.
I can't see that happening. Just how full fullheartedly Chris
Luxon has nailed his colors to the mask on this
one and saying that the Nats have absolutely no business
supporting this at the second reading, and the fact that
you can listen to how his language has transformed since
the bill was first actually brought onto the public debate.
(05:15):
He started off by saying essentially, oh, we'll support it
in the first reading, but we're not sure about what's
happening in the second reading, or he was a little
bit sort of wholehum about what it will support it
to the Select Committee and then we'll see what happens
after that. And then more and more pressure that was
building on him, his language changed to the point where
he stood up in the House and was talking about
how the National Party won't support this, we don't like it.
(05:38):
We didn't get everything that we wanted when it came
to the coalition agreement. Neither did the act Party. And
this is just the nature of MMP.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Our view is that we have not supported this bill
from the very beginning. We see no need for it.
It's not some of the National Party will be supporting
from here. So we're going to vote it down in
the second reading. And I suspect if the opposition parties
do the same and it won't be a law.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
So Chris Luxon can't talk a big game like this
and then decide that he's going to turn around and
support this in second reading. Again, all bets are off
when it comes to a new coalition agreement. If the
act Party can canvas enough support to get a big
chunk of the NAT's voters, they can use this as
a coalition bottom line the next time around. But in
(06:24):
terms of looking at this term of government, in terms
of looking at the second reading in the House. It's
not going anywhere and it will be voted down.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
The bill was introduced to Parliament earlier than expected, which
has added to the contention around this. Why was it
brought forward?
Speaker 3 (06:38):
Oh, we don't know. I mean, that's the thing. David
Seymour says, things like this is just parliament. Bills move
around every once in a while, and he's been very
clear that the Waikangi Tribunal were the ones that demanded
a date for this bill to be tabled. But that
doesn't actually always happen. I mean, things do move around
in Parliament. I mean we never really cover when things
are being tabled in the House because it's just something
(06:59):
that we as pressed don't really pay that much attention to.
We pay attention to the first reading, a little bit,
the second reading and then definitely the third reading. But
when a bill is tabled, it's really not all that
exciting because when you're a government and you table a bill,
we already know that that bill is essentially as good
as past because you are the government, you have the
(07:19):
votes in the House, and if you introduce a bill,
it means that bill is going to be come out
the other side of the third reading and it's going
to have the votes to get through. Hence why it's
not usually something that we pay attention to. So David
Seymore might be right. These things might move around and
we just don't really know enough about them and we
don't really concentrate enough on that aspect of it. But
on the other hand, you know, it's a very contentious
(07:41):
piece of legislation. It's timing of which is very newsworthy.
I mean, you've only got to look at the timings
of the hikoya across the country to work that one out,
and as well as the fact that the Prime Minister
and his Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters are both going
to be out of the country when this bill has
its reading.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
The latest Waitangi Tribunal report on the policy warned whether
the bill was actually enacted or not, its impacts will
not fade for a long time. So I guess is
that Seymour's main goal here to keep that conversation going
because it's not going to get through and he just
wants to keep the buzz alive.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I guess the buzz alive. I mean that makes it's
a good way of putting it. I mean the buzz
in this sense could be very much seen as the
Select committee process once. I mean, if you look at
the Coalition agreement, it says the National Party will support
the treaty's principles through its first reading into the Select
Committee process, meaning that it will be looked at by
a Select committee. Select Committee, of course, is a cross
(08:50):
party group of MPs that scrutinize legislation to see how
they can be improved on, and they take various different
public soundings on it as well. It's very common for
bills to be submitted on In fact the Press Gallery
I'm also the Press Gallery chair as well as zeb's
political editor. We are currently submitting on the Parliament Bill
because we think that people should be able to oia
(09:12):
parliamentary services. So as part of that submission we go
along to the Select Committee and they ask us questions
and we respond in kind, and we ask them questions
and they respond in kind. It's part of the submission
process and it's a cornerstone of New Zealand's democratic process.
So some of the concerns from the likes of the
Waikongi Tribunal have been that this will just be a
(09:33):
vehicle for people that have racist intents to platform them
and what they say and use that as a way
of talking down this bill. David Seymour will say that
this is an opportunity for people that want the bill
and have serious reasons behind why they think it should pass,
to have the ability to speak to MPs and the
media can come along and listen as well and get
(09:54):
those arguments across. So this bill, whether David Seymour likes
it or not, and I do think he probably would
like it, is going to be on the political agenda
for quite some time after the first reading when that
comes up later today.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
So you've already mentioned this, But the hikoy taking place
at the moment, it's not only about the Treaty Principal's Bill, right,
So the Hikoy.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
Is at its heart a protest against the Treaty Principal's Bill,
and that has been evident from the start. However, it
is also a vehicle for other people to air their
grievances against the government, specifically, I would say to do
with Mardi issues. I mean Tipati Marti. One of the
things that they've done incredibly well since they've been in
Parliament is they've been able to mobilize and activate their
(10:38):
base to get out and be very vocal against various
different government policies that they think are anti Mahdi. For example,
you know, the changing the names of the various different ministries,
not changing the names, just having the English name first
and the today or name second rather than the other
way around. So there are a bunch of different things
that people are protesting about. This will be the main
(10:59):
one and the vehicle in which that they will bring
this Hikhoi to Parliament. I would say that if you're
looking at all the or the controversial issues that the
government has put through or is deciding whether to put through,
is this the case with the treaty's principal bill, I
would say this is probably the one that has courted
the most controversy. So it makes sense that that is
the main thrust of the Hikoi when it arrives.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I think you made a really good point there saying
that Tapatimordi has done an excellent job of mobilizing their supporters,
because they absolutely have. What about on the other end
of the spectrum, Is there anybody on the other side
of the discussion that is quite vocal about this?
Speaker 3 (11:36):
David Seymour is the champion on the other side, and
he is alone. He's a long wolf in this fight
in terms of the fact that he doesn't have the
support of Chris lux and he doesn't have the support
of Winston Peters, and there's nobody that's really been standing
up to add their support to this bill. But that's
okay for David Seymour because that would distract from the
fact that is the ACT Party who are the ones
(11:57):
that are pushing this bill through. He wants people to
see that it's him and the ACT Party that are
ones that are standing up for their rights in terms
of the Treaty's Principals Bill. So he'll be happy with
the fact that it's just him because he gets all
the attention over this, and he will what he's been
doing is he's been talking about the opposition to the bill,
but you'll often you'll you'll see as well that he's
(12:17):
been almost targeting, well not even almost, he has been
targeting the media and talking about the fact that it's
been incredibly biased in its coverage. You can the ACT
Party in David Seymour's Facebook and social media pages are
littered with what they see as example of media bias.
So all he needs to do is just drum up
enough anti media supports, drum up enough anti anti party Marti,
(12:40):
anti labor support, so all the focus comes back to him,
so that his would be supporters would be saying, well,
this is our guy for the next election.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
So there have been protests, you know across the country.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
There's an ecoy that's coming down to Wellington. Is that
not a sign that there is division in what the
skill is doing.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
No, it's a sign that some people oppose it. Actually,
they were counted seventeen people outside Parliament and I watched
your news look, which was zoomed on one or two
people to make it look as though it was bigger
than it really was.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
You mentioned that this could have a good role on effect,
taking some of those National supporters who were on the
fence and moving them over to ACT. But what about
the opposition parties? Have they benefited from the backlash to
the bill at all? Do you reckon that they're going
to scoop up some of those act or even labouring
Green voters with them not going ahead and not backing
David Seymour on this.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
They have a different problem on the other side of
the political aisle, and that is that if the focus
of the Treaty Principal's bill proponents is well and truly
David Seymour, the opponents should be the leader of the opposition,
which is Chris Hopkins. It's not it's te Pati Marti,
it's Debbie Nadi were Packer, and it's an Alki Waitity.
And that is because they are so good at the mobilization.
(13:59):
I mean, they're not in the house very often, they
neglect that part of the job, but they do get
out amongst the country all the time, and that's the
way that they communicate to their base. It's a new
way of doing things, and I think it's ruffled a
few of the sort of the Stormwart's sort of parliamentary
figures around here. But the problem with that is that
(14:20):
they're the focus here and it means that I think
that they're more likely to get votes from this than
the Labor Party will. And you'll remember that at its
heart here there is they might look quite close allies,
but there is a conflict between Tea Party Marty and
the Labor Party. In terms of those seven Marty seats
at the moment, six of those are to Tea Party
Madi and their vote outside those seats is just about
(14:42):
around about three percent. Whereas the Labor Party, yes, they
didn't have a very good election result, but they lost
all of those Marty seats bar one that was held
by Auti Waitity in the twenty twenty election. So there
is a bit of a battle between them going on
because without those seven seats, or without any of those seats,
Tea Party Marty wouldn't be in Parliament and Labor desperately
(15:03):
wants them back, and at this stage Tea Party Marty
is probably going to win. They might even get a
clean suite, and they know that it's because of issues
like this that they are able to do a lot
better at than the Labor Party.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Thanks for joining us, Jason, no problem at all. That's
it for this episode of The Front Page. You can
read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at
enzied Herald dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
produced by Ethan Sills Richard Martin as sound engineer slash producer.
(15:35):
I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio
or wherever you get your podcasts and tune in tomorrow
for another look behind the headlines,
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.