Broadcaster Peter Williams, Far North mayor Moko Tepania and activist Hilda Halkyard-Harawira were some of today’s submitters.

PoliticsFebruary 14, 2025

Treaty principles bill hearings, day five: ‘Nice to be here – not really’

Lyric Waiwiri-Smith

Politics reporter

Joel MacManus

Wellington editor

Broadcaster Peter Williams, Far North mayor Moko Tepania and activist Hilda Halkyard-Harawira were some of today’s submitters.

Everything you missed from day five of the Treaty principles bill hearings, when the Justice Committee heard eight hours of submissions.

Read our recaps of the previous hearings here.

It was another work from home day for the Justice Committee, the only people in Room 3 being security guards, committee technicians and a lowly Spinoff reporter. Many submissions heard today were by individual submitters, with fewer big names than in the first four hearings. First up was Moko Tepania, Far North mayor, and Babe Kapa, the district’s Māori ward councillor, who submitted against the bill on behalf of the council.

Tepania said the bill “absolutely sabotaged” relationships between the council and iwi and would pit iwi and hapū against each other, with more mana given to group who have made Treaty settlements over those who haven’t, which will have a negative knock-on effect for economic growth in the region. “We’ll always be the poor little cousin in the Far North,” Tepania said.

Poata Watene of Tuu Oho Mai Services, a Waikato kaupapa Māori family violence specialist service, said te Tiriti was “fundamental” to ensuring their service provided meaningful care and pathways out of violence through tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake. The Māori Women’s Welfare League’s Hope Tupara also submitted against, saying the bill was driven by personal ideology. “This is akin to getting a two-for-one deal,” she said – one bill to encompass two different Treaties.

“Nice to be here – not really,” was how Hilda Halkyard-Harawira opened her submission against the bill for kura kaupapa support group Te Wānanga o Te Rangi Āniwaniwa. “My friends and I have been saying the same thing for years – we just want to be Māori in our daily lives,” she said. “Our culture is simple and complex, but it’s also our strength.” She agreed Māori do receive different treatment compared to tauiwi – “it’s called racism”.

Activist and educator Hilda Halkyard-Harawira.

Craig Nisbet, owner of housing developer Cohasset Group, spoke in favour of the bill, saying he had many Māori friends who also backed the bill and cited issues with resource consent as a motivator for his support. His submission was followed by Daniel Proctor (Ngāi Tāmanuhiri, Ngāti Uepohatu, and Ngāti Porou) of Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust, who said the bill would continue a “shameless colonial legacy of assimilation”.

Palmerston North city councillor Brent Barrett criticised the bill as a “gross abuse of power” which is “more akin to betrayal and treason than to any legitimate legislative process”. Barrett called for an apology to Māori and King Charles (for “overreach[ing] and demean[ing] the monarch’s legacy”), as well as a statement from the prime minister to acknowledge the bill was “too high a price to pay” for political leadership.

Reality Check Radio’s Peter Williams supported the bill, saying it was up to voters and electors to define what the principles of the Treaty were. Justice Committee member and Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris shook his head when Williams called himself “tangata whenua”, and told Williams he was representative of the “massive knowledge gap” about the Treaty.

The Justice Committee hears Peter Williams’ submission.

The Public Service Association’s Te Whatu Ora reps Virgil Iraia, Diana Mancer and Allan Francis spoke against the bill, which Mancer said would be a “step back” for health equity. Francis said the bill diminished the tino rangatiratanga guaranteed to Māori in te Tiriti, which would undo progress being made in the sector to address disproportionate health outcomes for Māori.

People for Palestine spokesperson Yasmine Serhan highlighted the little-known “fourth article” of te Tiriti – the promise of religious freedom that William Hobson gave to rangatira at the first Treaty signing – as a key protection for Muslim New Zealanders. She said the bill was an attempt to “force assimilation of Maori and erase their ethnic identity, just as Zionists tried to do to us as Palestinian people”.

Ripeka Lessels and Beverly Te Huia, in two separate submissions, both approached tears as they spoke about their mothers being beaten at school for speaking te reo Māori. Rob Smith and Simon O’Neill, also in two separate submissions, both argued against the bill because “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Former Green MP Catherine Delahunty highlighted the word “tino”, which is commonly translated as “absolute”. The text of te Tiriti promises Māori tino rangatiratanga (absolute chieftainship) but only promises the Crown kawanatanga (governance), not tino kawanatanga (absolute governance). “It’s a limited governance that was allowed,” she said.

Sir Collin Tukuitonga, speaking for the New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine, said the bill was “a flawed solution to a problem that doesn’t exist” and “misrepresents and distorts the articles of the Treaty”.

Ngā Maia Trust’s Crete Cherrington made her presence known. “Ngā Maia has come before you to put a pou in the ground and say ‘stop the madness’.” She drew on her years as a midwife in Te Tai Tokerau where she had seen first-hand declines in Māori health. “The persistent inequity is unacceptable,” she said.

John Perham complained that Māori “were “degrading modern Pākehā as unwelcome invaders”, claiming they were aiming to take control over parliament and reign exclusively over New Zealand by 2040. As he concluded his speech, chair Duncan Webb informed him they had no time for questions. Rawiri Waititi chimed in: “What a pity. Get well soon John.” Another supporter of the bill, John Porter, said New Zealand was split into two halves, and “one of the halves believes they hold a separate status and an elevated status based on ancestry”.

The day’s final submitter, Hineātea Alexander, offered two possible future scenarios for Aotearoa. The first was one of “fear-mongering and division that will further break down the diverse communities I am a part of… in this situation, we all lose”. The second scenario was one “where people in positions of power have strengthened the role te Tiriti in decision-making to ensure a positive and inclusive future for every single person living in Aotearoa”.

Keep going!

One square remains notably empty in the attachment styles matrix. (Image: Gabi Lardies)

PoliticsFebruary 14, 2025

Analysing the attachment styles of the coalition throuple

Gabi Lardies

Staff writer

One square remains notably empty in the attachment styles matrix. (Image: Gabi Lardies)

Our parliamentary throuple may be the longest running in the country, but cracks are showing. Gabi Lardies wonders if differing attachment styles may be to blame.

Though no one ever anticipated happiness or roses in the three-way coalition, the relationship has wobbled on for over a year without breaking up. This week, however, has been particularly tumultuous, with Christopher Luxon’s two partners misbehaving and sticking by their thrown toys. Perhaps their acting out is due to incompatible attachment styles.

The psychoanalytic theory goes like this: humans develop different attachment styles in childhood which set the foundation for their adult relationships.

There are four attachment styles:

Anxious – driven by a feeling of being unlovable, anxious attachers are clingy and demanding of validation.
Avoidant – avoidant people are self-reliant. They act cold and defensive, avoid intimacy and hide their feelings.
Disorganised – this type switches between avoidant and anxious behaviour. They want intimacy and validation, but they don’t trust others, so they’re unpredictable and highly emotional.
Secure – secure people like themselves and others, they are comfortable communicating honestly and being close to people.

Turmoil follows incompatible attachment types. So what combination is the throuple working with?

Peters talking to luxon in the debating chamber — Eye contact is absent. Luxon and Peters in the house May 2024. (Photo: Getty)

Christopher Luxon

It took a while for the public to warm up to the top dog, and polls show that the warmth isn’t lasting. We could chalk this up to avoidant tendencies – he did not attend Waitangi this year, nor greet the huge nationwide Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti at parliament and he was absent for the first reading of the Treaty principles bill. His ability to turn into a wisp of smoke in a tense situation is uncanny.

When asked about difficult topics by the media, Luxon often gives avoidant answers. He is not the “language police”, he was “unaware” of his investment properties’ capital gains, he said he had not seen Casey Costello’s advice on heated tobacco products tax cuts, even eight months later. He even claimed not to know Winston Peters – arguably most of the country knows him and he was set to become a coalition partner.

Luxon does not appear to be close with his coalition partners. Google image searches “Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters” and “Christopher Luxon and David Seymour” result in composite images and photos from over a year ago when they signed coalition agreements. This week he said “I do not give David Seymour a lot of time”. Questions about their behaviour get him hot and bothered, and he says he doesn’t want to be drawn into “distractions”. It seems Luxon’s heart is saying “avoid, avoid avoid!”

Ruling: Avoidant

David Seymour

If there’s anything Seymour is good at it’s getting attention. Recently he’s hit headlines for the Land Rover incident, his love life, roasting a comedian, writing a letter to the police in support of Philip Polkinghorne and his reaction to warnings that his party’s president Tim Jago, now convicted sex offender, was a sexual predator. Getting more attention than votes is probably the bedrock of his career and attachment style.

The anxiously attached thrive when receiving attention, even when attention cannot be described as positive. Seymour revels in it – he met the hīkoi against his Treaty principles bill and said he felt “fantastic” afterwards. But he tends to take criticism poorly – on Monday, when Luxon said his Polkinghorne letter was “ill-advised”, Seymour was unrepentant, instead telling RNZ “what’s ill-advised is commenting when you don’t know all the facts”. People with an anxious attachment style find it hard to handle rejection and lashing back is not uncommon.

There is also the bragging, a key characteristic of an anxious attachment style. At the end of last year, David Seymour needed the nation to know that his party had been wielding “disproportionate” influence. The kūmara does not speak of how sweet it is unless it is anxious.

Ruling: Anxious

Winston Peters

The charmer Peters takes delight in the theatre of parliament. Like Seymour, he’s a main character from a minor party. While Peters looks extremely comfortable and stately in his deputy prime minister’s seat, he has a long history of having volatile relationships with his own party, coalition partners and the media. With almost 50 years of experience, the swashbuckling and volatility seem a deft, theatrical dance.

Last week he attacked immigrant MPs in parliament, but then backed down and met the Mexican ambassador in person. Being able to repair relationships through dialogue is secure behaviour, even if you don’t change your problematic opinions. Yet his outbursts are unpredictable and seemingly driven by emotions.

Peters often throws out personal barbs. There was “a bunch of coward bully boys” at Te Pāti Māori, “dysfunctional geriatric” at Tim Macindoe and saying Luxon was “struggling, not in a bad way”. Peters works (negotiates) with others when it suits him. He doesn’t care if he pisses other people off. While he might be an honest communicator, often what he says is chaotic. Relationships are transactional and perhaps only props for a tumultuous theatre.

Ruling: Disorganised

The combination is not particularly promising, but the throuple will be pleased to know that attachment styles can change if acknowledged and worked on. Or so say a million Instagram reels.