November 16, 2024 • 15 mins
Those participating in the Treaty Principles Bill hikoi have reached Palmerston North today, just days away from Parliament.
On Thursday, Te Pati Maori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke ripped a copy of the legislation in hald at the Bill's first reading and launched into a haka, soon joined by more MPs.
The haka has gone viral worldwide, and international media and commentators did not have much in the way of kind words in response.
ACT Party Leader and Bill architect David Seymour joins with more.
LISTEN ABOVE
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):
You're listening to the Weekend collective podcast from news Talks B.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The Hikoy has reached Parmerston North, just days away from
Parliament on Thursday. You will remember the scenes to Party
marimp Hunter Rafferty m P Clark. That is quite a surname,
isn't It ripped a copy of the legislation in half
at the first reading and launched into a hakka, soon
joined by more MPs and people in the gallery. The
hakker went worldwide viral, international media commentators having their say
(00:31):
on it as well. And with me now is Act
Party leader and the bill's author, slash architect David Seymour.
Good afternoon, Good afternoon. I found someone who likes your
bill even more than you do. And I think you're
going to be getting a Christmas card from Rawdy Yit
for giving him the best ever recruitment tool he's ever had.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Well, that maybe hits you, but I think the question
is what does the recruiting people for that's positive, that
can ultimately solve problems for people. If I look at
what I would want is the place to live, better education,
better job prospects. Funnily enough, the same thing everyone wants
(01:12):
and to Party MARII, I think are showing that they
don't really have any solutions, just theatrics, So he might
think that that I'm not sure that it's going to
build much of a movement for him just being against things.
On the other hand, has a pretty comprehensive set of
policies on everything from the ARIMA to delivering charter schools
(01:32):
and getting more overseas investment to make New Zealand a
wealthare place.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
What is the best that we can hope to gain
from the presentation of this bill, because I mean, let's
face it, we're not going to be hitting a referendum,
but we are going to have a select committee process.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Well, as you said in your intro, you don't think
that I just hold the possibility open for you that
say that. A week's a long time in politics, and
we've got about twenty five weeks until the Select committeees
due to report back. But let's just for a moment
take you that you know what you're saying is true
and it will only get to the first reading in
the select committee process. Well, in that instance, what we
(02:12):
will have done is democratize the treaty and introduced the
idea that all voices count that everyone has equal rights
in New Zealand to have a say about the future
of our constitutional settings. That's quite different from what we've
had over the last forty years, where there's been a
fairly sublect and not very representative group of people, mainly
in the legal fraternity, that have been forming a view
(02:36):
of the treaty that the whole country has to live under,
but most people don't get a say on So that
democratization is big. And if you doubt that, you only
have to look at my opponents who agree with me
on this. If they really thought that the bill wasn't
going anywhere, why are they putting in so much effort
because they are opposed to the idea that people should
have a say.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Are you concerned about the sense of division that is
growing in New Zealand and that some people are saying
it's sowing a greater degree of division between New Zealanders.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, I'm extremely concerned, but bear in mind that was
true over a year ago before the last election under
the previous government, where I think forty seven percent of
New Zealanders said they felt the country was becoming more divided.
And that is because for the last thirty or forty years,
successive governments have told us that our treaty is a
(03:29):
partnership between two groups. Those groups are based on ancestry,
and as soon as you tell people that, the danger
is they start to believe it. And you've now got
a lot of people who will truly believe that if
they are not seen through an ancestral lens as one
of the treaty partners, not respected, it's targue to Penowa.
(03:49):
Then you're taking something from them. And when you say, well, actually,
what we're promising is equal rights for all citizens and
a liberal democracy, they must be the only people in
the world who don't want that, because successive governments have
built up the expectations they have.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
I've heard a lot of accusations, and some of them
are impugning your integrity and your motives behind it, saying that, look,
you're just doing this because it's a pathway for ACT
to get more support from people who think the same way.
But I thought i'd give you a chance to answer
those critics who are saying this is a cynical political ploy.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
There's a great line in Shakespeare measuring the minds of
others by one's own and I suspect some of the
people who are saying that are saying it because that's
how they would think. And I'm sorry if that's the case.
But I can tell you the reason that I'm doing
this is not because it's easy, not because I like
the amount of criticism and abuse I seem to be
(04:47):
copping from some quarters. It's probably not the easiest way
to promote the Act Party, and there's some risk that
people will turn against you for taking a controversial stand.
But throughout my career, whether it's been the earthquake regulations,
I was the only one to oppose them. Everyone said,
how could you in the of the christ Church tragedy
that cost tens of billions of dollars, nowhereal benefit. Now
(05:09):
the government's reversing them. The firearm laws after March for then,
people said, how could you? I think if you look
at the rise of gun violence after they banned all
those firearms, that just disappeared and made place more dangerous.
I was actually right about that. And again assisted dying
or euthanasia. We've just had three years of assisted dying
being legal in New Zealand. At the time people said
(05:31):
all sorts of biviest things about how terrible I was,
but it was the right thing to do. And once again,
you know, I believe that equal rights forfort the law
are the only basis for a successful society and the
only way we'll solve all of those other problems such
as housing and health and education and economic growth which
may seem more urgent but are harder to do when
(05:52):
you have this deviceive constitutional base.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Yeah, I was when I was chatting with Duncan web
about this, and we lightheartedly referred to the reference from
the movie The Castle AND's the vibe and everything, But
that was on the It's basically connected with the idea
that the principles are sort of fluid and they've decided
on a case by case basis. Is there in a
(06:15):
way I'm going to ask you to argue against your
own position a little bit, But is there some sort
of strength in the fact that we do have a
sort of fluidity to these principles and the dangers locking
them in in legislation.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Well, the main thing that people want from the law
is certainty, because if you know what the law is,
then you're able to make investment decisions and all sorts
of choices about how you're going to live your life
because you know how you're going to be treated under
the law in different circumstances. I would argue what we
have right now is great uncertainty. You only have to
(06:51):
look at the Resource Management Acts under our current conception
of the Treaty. I was talking to someone just this week.
They've been trying to do a major consent. It's been
held up for four years because RNA requires you to
consult locally. Some agree, one doesn't, and as a result
it's been held up for years being developed. Now. I
(07:13):
think that's just shocking. It's a good example of how
not having the kind of certainty my bill provides, where
we say, look, but these are the principles everyone has
Ecore runs. That is actually what we really need from
a law.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
I guess National would say, look, we can change that
legislation without having to bring in a principles bill. What
do you say to.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
That, Well, I think that's one of the arguments that
the National Party make is that well, yes, but we've
got rid of Maori Health Authority, we've got rid of
the co governance and three wards we're changing back the
Maori wards. We're doing a review of treaty principles in
some but not all laws, and therefore there's no need
to get to the core of the Treaty of Bytoni's
(07:56):
meaning and right about the fact that they're doing it
and at wholeheartedly supports all of those initiatives and more. However,
it's also true that we have a whole lot of
policies that came about because of this idea that the
treaty created a partnership between two groups based on ancestry.
(08:17):
And the thing is labor get back in. And this
is a democracy. I mean, chances are there'll be a
change to a government from the left at some point
in the next decade, and when that happens, they will,
at the stroke of a pen, pick up the ideas
that are lying around and reinstate all of those policies,
(08:38):
and we will go one step further down this device
of path.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
What's the best argument you've heard against your position?
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Well, I think that there are people who say that
the Parliament should stay out of it and leave it
up to the judges to interpret a contract between the
chiefs and the crown. And that's a fine argument so
far as it goes. The reason I don't buy that
(09:08):
argument is that ultimately you've got to actually make constitutional
settings that work. So if they were left to their
own devices, they would take us to a place where
there are tongas of Fenua land people tongue to TVT
everyone else's. It's kind of here by dinta for treaty.
And there are no successful models of societies that divide
(09:29):
their citizens with different places in society based on ancestry.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Are you going to be meeting the Hakoi?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Well a week ago I was quite keen to then
one of the leaders, du Kapakini, who is actually the
son of a to Party of Maori and p Maori
Party employee. As far as I can tell, he's on
the Parliamentary Directory of Staff. He's the leader, and he
said he doesn't want to talk to me because I
don't speak Maori. And then I watched the behavior of
(09:58):
two party mary in our parliament, which frankly is embarrassed
New Zealand. Globally. They won't care, they'll think it's great,
but I think it will have embarrassed New Zealand globally.
They're going to look at that and I'm sorry, I'm
going to look at that and say well, you know,
as this becomes more and more clearly your Mari Party project,
(10:19):
do I want to be a part of that? Can?
I hope to have a decent exchange and communication with protest.
It's been organized by the same people that were responsible
for that display in Parliament this week, So I'm becoming
a bit more hesitant. I've got to say.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Look, I mentioned that you've learned in life that you know,
there's one thing to have a discussion based on recent arguments,
and even if you were right on this, depending on
people's point of view, there's also the political argument, which
you can lose whether you're right or not. Is there
a point where if you feel you're losing the political argument,
you might change your approach on this or you just
(11:00):
we're just going to see this through.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Well, I mean right now. Well, it's in the hands
of the Select Committee. There's a coalition commitment that they're
going to do six months of hearings and give people
the choice. I find it difficult. So the major change
you could make is to say you no longer want
to do that. I find it difficult to believe that
there's any benefit and saying no New Zealanders shouldn't be
(11:25):
able to have a say on this bill, So that's
probably the even and I don't know if I really
even have the power to change that, to be honest,
So no, I mean, you know, as I have all along,
I meet people with reasoned arguments, and I just constantly
say the people, which part of the bill do you oppose?
Is the government having the right to govern equal rights?
(11:45):
What are you against? And second of all, how is
this world you propose supposed to work where you've got
two groups of people divided by their ancestry trying to
work together. Pretty difficult to see how.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
That works, I guess as part of that question. And
I know it's a difficult for a politician to answer
this question because you've got to stick to your gun.
But you know, we can all set it ramping up
in the drama that it creates, and I don't want
to catastrophize that either, as we've seen from comments like
Jenny Shipley. But do you have moments where you know
you have a bit of time to yourself and you
still look at yourself in the mornin and think, oh
(12:19):
goodness me, what am I? What am I doing? Do
you have a moments when you sort of think, should
I persist with this?
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Well? I do occasionally, and then I just come back
to Okay, do I want to live in a country
which is officially divided by people's ancestry? So it doesn't
take it very long to come back to know. I
want people who believe in that have the opportunity to
explain to New Zealand why they believe that they have
(12:48):
special rights based on birth. But the New zealand And
I want them to explain where in the world has
it been successful to divide citizens up who their ancestors were.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Do you think we'll be able to turn down the
temperature of the conversation eventually? Is the select committee process
goes on or is it? What are your thoughts about that?
Can we have a mature conversation?
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Well, I suspect at some point the Maori Party support
us are going to start assume themselves. You know, where
are these guys taking us? How's this going to get
me better health, housing, education and economy? Because they're not
providing any solutions other than everything has to be mari
And the truth is that, you know, there's a range
of people across New very deeply into tow Maori others
(13:34):
less so, and what we all need to do together
is figure out how to build more roads and infrastructure.
The Treaty Principles Bill would give a better basis constitutionally
for doing those things, because we wouldn't have this constant division.
But you know, I think at some point they're going
to have to ask themselves what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
I guess it's I mean, we've almost put the Marray
party one side, because there are people who are not
on that side of the ledger who are still I
mean in terms of the middle, do you think we'll
be able to have a rational discussion excluding that side
of things.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Well, that's certainly what I set out to achieve. And
you know the way I carry myself and the arguments
I make, I just stick to the basic questions. Some
people say it's simple, Well, you know, my questions are
where has a society as they propose being a success,
if anywhere in history? Because I can point to you
to lots of disastrous examples. And second of all, you know,
(14:36):
what exactly about the bill do you dislike? And I
urge people to go to Treaty dot in z online
and actually read through from the horse's mouth as it were,
what the Treaty Principal's Bill actually is about.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Okay, hey, David, I really appreciate your time this afternoon,
and good luck with everything, and we'll talk to again sometime.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
No worries, and once again, that was treaty dot in
z Jeers.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Thanks very much. That's Act Party leader and the author
of the Treaty Principal's Bill, David Seymour.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend collective podcast from news Talks B.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The Hikoy has reached Parmerston North, just days away from
Parliament on Thursday. You will remember the scenes to Party
marimp Hunter Rafferty m P Clark. That is quite a surname,
isn't It ripped a copy of the legislation in half
at the first reading and launched into a hakka, soon
joined by more MPs and people in the gallery. The
hakker went worldwide viral, international media commentators having their say
(00:31):
on it as well. And with me now is Act
Party leader and the bill's author, slash architect David Seymour.
Good afternoon, Good afternoon. I found someone who likes your
bill even more than you do. And I think you're
going to be getting a Christmas card from Rawdy Yit
for giving him the best ever recruitment tool he's ever had.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Well, that maybe hits you, but I think the question
is what does the recruiting people for that's positive, that
can ultimately solve problems for people. If I look at
what I would want is the place to live, better education,
better job prospects. Funnily enough, the same thing everyone wants
(01:12):
and to Party MARII, I think are showing that they
don't really have any solutions, just theatrics, So he might
think that that I'm not sure that it's going to
build much of a movement for him just being against things.
On the other hand, has a pretty comprehensive set of
policies on everything from the ARIMA to delivering charter schools
(01:32):
and getting more overseas investment to make New Zealand a
wealthare place.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
What is the best that we can hope to gain
from the presentation of this bill, because I mean, let's
face it, we're not going to be hitting a referendum,
but we are going to have a select committee process.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Well, as you said in your intro, you don't think
that I just hold the possibility open for you that
say that. A week's a long time in politics, and
we've got about twenty five weeks until the Select committeees
due to report back. But let's just for a moment
take you that you know what you're saying is true
and it will only get to the first reading in
the select committee process. Well, in that instance, what we
(02:12):
will have done is democratize the treaty and introduced the
idea that all voices count that everyone has equal rights
in New Zealand to have a say about the future
of our constitutional settings. That's quite different from what we've
had over the last forty years, where there's been a
fairly sublect and not very representative group of people, mainly
in the legal fraternity, that have been forming a view
(02:36):
of the treaty that the whole country has to live under,
but most people don't get a say on So that
democratization is big. And if you doubt that, you only
have to look at my opponents who agree with me
on this. If they really thought that the bill wasn't
going anywhere, why are they putting in so much effort
because they are opposed to the idea that people should
have a say.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Are you concerned about the sense of division that is
growing in New Zealand and that some people are saying
it's sowing a greater degree of division between New Zealanders.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, I'm extremely concerned, but bear in mind that was
true over a year ago before the last election under
the previous government, where I think forty seven percent of
New Zealanders said they felt the country was becoming more divided.
And that is because for the last thirty or forty years,
successive governments have told us that our treaty is a
(03:29):
partnership between two groups. Those groups are based on ancestry,
and as soon as you tell people that, the danger
is they start to believe it. And you've now got
a lot of people who will truly believe that if
they are not seen through an ancestral lens as one
of the treaty partners, not respected, it's targue to Penowa.
(03:49):
Then you're taking something from them. And when you say, well, actually,
what we're promising is equal rights for all citizens and
a liberal democracy, they must be the only people in
the world who don't want that, because successive governments have
built up the expectations they have.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
I've heard a lot of accusations, and some of them
are impugning your integrity and your motives behind it, saying that, look,
you're just doing this because it's a pathway for ACT
to get more support from people who think the same way.
But I thought i'd give you a chance to answer
those critics who are saying this is a cynical political ploy.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
There's a great line in Shakespeare measuring the minds of
others by one's own and I suspect some of the
people who are saying that are saying it because that's
how they would think. And I'm sorry if that's the case.
But I can tell you the reason that I'm doing
this is not because it's easy, not because I like
the amount of criticism and abuse I seem to be
(04:47):
copping from some quarters. It's probably not the easiest way
to promote the Act Party, and there's some risk that
people will turn against you for taking a controversial stand.
But throughout my career, whether it's been the earthquake regulations,
I was the only one to oppose them. Everyone said,
how could you in the of the christ Church tragedy
that cost tens of billions of dollars, nowhereal benefit. Now
(05:09):
the government's reversing them. The firearm laws after March for then,
people said, how could you? I think if you look
at the rise of gun violence after they banned all
those firearms, that just disappeared and made place more dangerous.
I was actually right about that. And again assisted dying
or euthanasia. We've just had three years of assisted dying
being legal in New Zealand. At the time people said
(05:31):
all sorts of biviest things about how terrible I was,
but it was the right thing to do. And once again,
you know, I believe that equal rights forfort the law
are the only basis for a successful society and the
only way we'll solve all of those other problems such
as housing and health and education and economic growth which
may seem more urgent but are harder to do when
(05:52):
you have this deviceive constitutional base.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Yeah, I was when I was chatting with Duncan web
about this, and we lightheartedly referred to the reference from
the movie The Castle AND's the vibe and everything, But
that was on the It's basically connected with the idea
that the principles are sort of fluid and they've decided
on a case by case basis. Is there in a
(06:15):
way I'm going to ask you to argue against your
own position a little bit, But is there some sort
of strength in the fact that we do have a
sort of fluidity to these principles and the dangers locking
them in in legislation.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Well, the main thing that people want from the law
is certainty, because if you know what the law is,
then you're able to make investment decisions and all sorts
of choices about how you're going to live your life
because you know how you're going to be treated under
the law in different circumstances. I would argue what we
have right now is great uncertainty. You only have to
(06:51):
look at the Resource Management Acts under our current conception
of the Treaty. I was talking to someone just this week.
They've been trying to do a major consent. It's been
held up for four years because RNA requires you to
consult locally. Some agree, one doesn't, and as a result
it's been held up for years being developed. Now. I
(07:13):
think that's just shocking. It's a good example of how
not having the kind of certainty my bill provides, where
we say, look, but these are the principles everyone has
Ecore runs. That is actually what we really need from
a law.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
I guess National would say, look, we can change that
legislation without having to bring in a principles bill. What
do you say to.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
That, Well, I think that's one of the arguments that
the National Party make is that well, yes, but we've
got rid of Maori Health Authority, we've got rid of
the co governance and three wards we're changing back the
Maori wards. We're doing a review of treaty principles in
some but not all laws, and therefore there's no need
to get to the core of the Treaty of Bytoni's
(07:56):
meaning and right about the fact that they're doing it
and at wholeheartedly supports all of those initiatives and more. However,
it's also true that we have a whole lot of
policies that came about because of this idea that the
treaty created a partnership between two groups based on ancestry.
(08:17):
And the thing is labor get back in. And this
is a democracy. I mean, chances are there'll be a
change to a government from the left at some point
in the next decade, and when that happens, they will,
at the stroke of a pen, pick up the ideas
that are lying around and reinstate all of those policies,
(08:38):
and we will go one step further down this device
of path.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
What's the best argument you've heard against your position?
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Well, I think that there are people who say that
the Parliament should stay out of it and leave it
up to the judges to interpret a contract between the
chiefs and the crown. And that's a fine argument so
far as it goes. The reason I don't buy that
(09:08):
argument is that ultimately you've got to actually make constitutional
settings that work. So if they were left to their
own devices, they would take us to a place where
there are tongas of Fenua land people tongue to TVT
everyone else's. It's kind of here by dinta for treaty.
And there are no successful models of societies that divide
(09:29):
their citizens with different places in society based on ancestry.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
Are you going to be meeting the Hakoi?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Well a week ago I was quite keen to then
one of the leaders, du Kapakini, who is actually the
son of a to Party of Maori and p Maori
Party employee. As far as I can tell, he's on
the Parliamentary Directory of Staff. He's the leader, and he
said he doesn't want to talk to me because I
don't speak Maori. And then I watched the behavior of
(09:58):
two party mary in our parliament, which frankly is embarrassed
New Zealand. Globally. They won't care, they'll think it's great,
but I think it will have embarrassed New Zealand globally.
They're going to look at that and I'm sorry, I'm
going to look at that and say well, you know,
as this becomes more and more clearly your Mari Party project,
(10:19):
do I want to be a part of that? Can?
I hope to have a decent exchange and communication with protest.
It's been organized by the same people that were responsible
for that display in Parliament this week, So I'm becoming
a bit more hesitant. I've got to say.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Look, I mentioned that you've learned in life that you know,
there's one thing to have a discussion based on recent arguments,
and even if you were right on this, depending on
people's point of view, there's also the political argument, which
you can lose whether you're right or not. Is there
a point where if you feel you're losing the political argument,
you might change your approach on this or you just
(11:00):
we're just going to see this through.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Well, I mean right now. Well, it's in the hands
of the Select Committee. There's a coalition commitment that they're
going to do six months of hearings and give people
the choice. I find it difficult. So the major change
you could make is to say you no longer want
to do that. I find it difficult to believe that
there's any benefit and saying no New Zealanders shouldn't be
(11:25):
able to have a say on this bill, So that's
probably the even and I don't know if I really
even have the power to change that, to be honest,
So no, I mean, you know, as I have all along,
I meet people with reasoned arguments, and I just constantly
say the people, which part of the bill do you oppose?
Is the government having the right to govern equal rights?
(11:45):
What are you against? And second of all, how is
this world you propose supposed to work where you've got
two groups of people divided by their ancestry trying to
work together. Pretty difficult to see how.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
That works, I guess as part of that question. And
I know it's a difficult for a politician to answer
this question because you've got to stick to your gun.
But you know, we can all set it ramping up
in the drama that it creates, and I don't want
to catastrophize that either, as we've seen from comments like
Jenny Shipley. But do you have moments where you know
you have a bit of time to yourself and you
still look at yourself in the mornin and think, oh
(12:19):
goodness me, what am I? What am I doing? Do
you have a moments when you sort of think, should
I persist with this?
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Well? I do occasionally, and then I just come back
to Okay, do I want to live in a country
which is officially divided by people's ancestry? So it doesn't
take it very long to come back to know. I
want people who believe in that have the opportunity to
explain to New Zealand why they believe that they have
(12:48):
special rights based on birth. But the New zealand And
I want them to explain where in the world has
it been successful to divide citizens up who their ancestors were.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Do you think we'll be able to turn down the
temperature of the conversation eventually? Is the select committee process
goes on or is it? What are your thoughts about that?
Can we have a mature conversation?
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Well, I suspect at some point the Maori Party support
us are going to start assume themselves. You know, where
are these guys taking us? How's this going to get
me better health, housing, education and economy? Because they're not
providing any solutions other than everything has to be mari
And the truth is that, you know, there's a range
of people across New very deeply into tow Maori others
(13:34):
less so, and what we all need to do together
is figure out how to build more roads and infrastructure.
The Treaty Principles Bill would give a better basis constitutionally
for doing those things, because we wouldn't have this constant division.
But you know, I think at some point they're going
to have to ask themselves what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
I guess it's I mean, we've almost put the Marray
party one side, because there are people who are not
on that side of the ledger who are still I
mean in terms of the middle, do you think we'll
be able to have a rational discussion excluding that side
of things.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Well, that's certainly what I set out to achieve. And
you know the way I carry myself and the arguments
I make, I just stick to the basic questions. Some
people say it's simple, Well, you know, my questions are
where has a society as they propose being a success,
if anywhere in history? Because I can point to you
to lots of disastrous examples. And second of all, you know,
(14:36):
what exactly about the bill do you dislike? And I
urge people to go to Treaty dot in z online
and actually read through from the horse's mouth as it were,
what the Treaty Principal's Bill actually is about.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Okay, hey, David, I really appreciate your time this afternoon,
and good luck with everything, and we'll talk to again sometime.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
No worries, and once again, that was treaty dot in
z Jeers.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Thanks very much. That's Act Party leader and the author
of the Treaty Principal's Bill, David Seymour.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talk ZEDB weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.