Police estimate 42,000 people participated in the Wellington leg of the hīkoi - but other estimates put it at well over 50,000. Image: Layla Bailey-McDowell/RNZ
International media coverage of Aotearoa New Zealand’s national Hīkoi to Parliament has largely focused on the historic size of the turnout in Wellington yesterday and the wider contention between Māori and the Crown.
Some, including The New York Times, have also pointed out the recent swing right with the election of the coalition government as part of the reason for the unrest.
The Times article said New Zealand had veered “sharply right”, likening it to Donald Trump’s re-election.
“New Zealand bears little resemblance to the country recently led by Jacinda Ardern, whose brand of compassionate, progressive politics made her a global symbol of anti-Trump liberalism.”
The challenging of the rights of Māori was “driving a wedge into New Zealand society”, the article said.
“However, it has prompted widespread anger among the public, academics, lawyers and Māori rights groups who believe it is creating division, undermining the treaty, and damaging the relationship between Māori and ruling authorities,” it said.
‘Critical moment’
Turkey’s public broadcaster TRT World said New Zealand “faces a critical moment in its journey toward reconciling with its Indigenous population”.
🇳🇿 New Zealand MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke performed a haka in a powerful speech during her first appearance in parliament.
Maipi-Clarke is Aotearoa’s youngest MP since 1853 and is seen as representing the ‘kohanga reo’ generation of young Māori. pic.twitter.com/sWwbS1FsBI
While Al Jazeera agreed it was “a contentious bill redefining the country’s founding agreement between the British and the Indigenous Māori people”.
The Washington Post pointed out that the “bill is deeply unpopular, even among members of the ruling conservative coalition”.
“While the bill would not rewrite the treaty itself, it would essentially extend it equally to all New Zealanders, which critics say would effectively render the treaty worthless,” the article said.
The Hīkoi, and particularly the culmination of more than 42,000 people at Parliament, was covered in most of the mainstream international media outlets including Britain’s BBC and CNN in the United States, as well as wire agencies, including AFP, AP and Reuters.
Across the Ditch, the ABC headline called it a “flashpoint” on race relations. While the article went on to say it was “a critical moment in the fraught 180-year-old conversation about how New Zealand should honour the promises made to First Nations people when the country was colonised”.
We go now to Deir al-Balah in Gaza, where we’re joined by Arwa Damon, founder of INARA, a nonprofit currently providing medical and mental healthcare to children in Gaza. She previously spent 18 years at CNN, including time as a senior international correspondent.
Thanks so much for being with us, Arwa. This is your fourth trip back to Gaza since October 7, 2023. Tell us what you see there:
ARWA DAMON: You know, Amy, you think you can’t get worse, and then it does. You think people, quite simply, could never cope with these deteriorating conditions, and yet somehow they do. It’s a situation that they have been forced into.
Arguably, the conditions when it comes to access of humanitarian organisations and our ability to distribute aid, aid actually getting into the strip, we’re talking about the lowest levels yet. And this is exactly during the timeframe that the US had given to Israel to actually improve the situation. We’ve seen it getting significantly worse.
We’re not just talking about a shortage in things like flour, food, water, fresh vegetables, you know, hygiene kits. We’re also talking about shortages in what’s available on the commercial market. So, even if you somehow had money to be able to go buy what you need, it quite simply isn’t here.
These hospitals that we keep talking about as being partially functioning, what does that actually mean? It means that if you show up bleeding, someone inside is going to try to stop the bleed, but do they actually have what they need to save your life? No. I was inside visiting some kids here at Al-Aqsa earlier today and over the weekend.
There’s a little 2-year-old boy here whose brain you can see pulsing through his skin. His skull bone was removed. This little boy was not stabilising properly because the ICU was missing a pediatric-sized tracheostomy tube. Now, luckily, we were able to, you know, source some of them, and he has now stabilised, and he is off the ventilator.
Palestinians feel they are being ‘slowly exterminated’. Video: Democracy Now!
But this really gives you an idea of just how serious the situation here is.
People are gathering to demonstrate for things like flour, for bread, for whatever it is that you can imagine. Winter is coming. The rains are coming. This means flooding is coming.
And on top of just, you know, water flooding, we’re also anticipating that the sewage sites are going to be flooding, as well. Aid organizations need to be able to have the capacity and the ability to, you know, shift those sites to areas where they’re not going to pose even more of a health hazard to the community.
So, I mean, it’s a complete and total nightmare. It’s beyond being a nightmare.
AMY GOODMAN: If you can talk about this latest report? The special UN committee says Israel’s actions in Gaza are “consistent with the characteristics of genocide,” coming at the same time as a Human Rights Watch report, and UNRWA talks about famine being imminent in northern Gaza.
ARWA DAMON: So, if we’re talking specifically about the north, the northern province of Gaza, this is an area where Israel launched its military operation there nearly four weeks ago. We have seen people repeatedly being forcibly displaced from their homes. There is very little access to medical assistance there.
There has been absolutely no humanitarian assistance delivered there for about the last month. People are starving. They are dying. And it’s not just bombs that are killing people, it’s also disease.
‘Bombs kill quickly, but disease and starvation, they are slow killers. And that is what a lot of people are facing here.’
— Arwa Damon, founder of INARA,
So, when we look at the nature of what is happening in Gaza, you can’t spend a day here, Amy, and not come away with the notion that you are witnessing a population that is being slowly exterminated. And I say “slowly” because, yes, bombs kill quickly, but disease and starvation, they are slow killers. And that is what a lot of people are facing here.
And talk to anybody in Gaza, and there’s absolutely no doubt in their mind that, one, they are living through their own annihilation, and, two, what Israel is doing in the northern part is going to be repeated elsewhere.
And this is also part of why you see a reluctance among the population to want to evacuate, because Gazans know, Palestinians know that when they leave, they’re not going to be able to go back home. This is what history has taught them.
And there is this very real, ingrained fear among the population here right now that what they’re going through at this moment is not the end. There is actually a real sense that the worst is yet to come.
And they feel completely and totally abandoned by the international community, by global leaders, not to mention the United States. And everyone is convinced that right now Israel is going to have even more free rein to do whatever it is that it wants here.
When you talk to people about what it is that they’re going through, they do feel as if every single aspect of trying to survive here has been carefully orchestrated by Israel so that it is able to sort of meet America’s bare minimum of standards, to allow America sufficient cover to say, “Oh, no, there’s improvement that’s happening.”
And yet, actually, at the core of it is just another way to continue to kill the population.
AMY GOODMAN: And as you talk about the United States, which has given tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, they did recently set a 30-day deadline to increase the flow of food and humanitarian aid into Gaza, but the US has decided to keep arming Israel despite this and despite the number of officials in the State Department and other parts of the US government who have quit over this.
ARWA DAMON: Yeah, and let’s just look at the numbers. Let’s just look at what happened when the US started the clock for that 30-day deadline to improve humanitarian assistance. We saw, very shortly afterwards, the number of trucks accessing Gaza dip significantly, down to 30 a day, keeping in mind that one of the key demands that the US had was that aid be increased to at least 350 trucks.
So we saw this, you know, decrease consistent of roughly 30 trucks a day for most of the month of October. Now, in November, that number did go up to around 60-70, but we’re still talking about, you know, falling extraordinarily short, providing barely 20% of what it is that the population here needs.
We saw less access to these besieged areas in the north, where people are effectively trapped or having to basically risk their lives. We’ve had numerous instances where aid has been delivered to the Kamal Adwan Hospital in the north, for example, where, shortly after medical evacuation teams have arrived there, there have been strikes.
You have this very ingrained fear that exists among people right now, especially in the north, where some of them are saying, “Don’t deliver anything, because right after you’re delivering, strikes are happening.”
And just to illustrate how it is that we try to move, so if we’re moving from south to north, for example, or even if we’re moving within the northern areas, those movement requests have to be approved by Israel. And aid organisations are increasingly wary of moving around with what we call soft-skin cars, which is basically your normal vehicle that we use to move around in, because of the increasing frequency of instances at Israeli checkpoints where aid convoys have been shot at by IDF troops after receiving the green light.
The OK to cross through, which means that for a lot of aid organizations, movement is limited to those who have access to armoured vehicles, vehicles that are more secure. And those don’t really exist in Gaza in high numbers at all. And we’re not allowed to bring in more to sort of beef up our capacity to be able to move around safely.
I mean, no matter which way you look at it, Amy, you’re constantly faced by numerous obstacles that don’t need to be there. It feels very deliberate, not to mention the complete and total breakdown of security. Now we have numerous looting instances of aid trucks.
We’ve repeatedly asked the Israeli side to be able to use alternative routes, to be able to use secured routes. Those requests are not being met.
I mean, it’s just — it’s such an impossible situation to operate in. I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over and over again each time I come in. And the words to demonstrate how much worse it’s getting, quite simply, lack in our vocabulary.
AMY GOODMAN: You also wrote a piece recently, “The Devastation of Lebanon,” for New Lines. And we had this headline, The Washington Post reporting a close aide to Netanyahu told Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner that Israel is rushing to advance a ceasefire deal in Lebanon as a gift to Trump ahead of his January inauguration. Your response to the significance of Trump’s election and what it means to the people of Lebanon and Gaza?
ARWA DAMON: You know, first of all, anyone who lives in the Middle East and anyone who’s kind of been focusing on the Middle East knows very well that it really doesn’t matter who’s in the White House. Whether it’s Republican or Democrat, that really is not going to change significantly US policy towards this region.
But the thing that we’ve been hearing, specifically when it comes to the re-election of Donald Trump, is at least he’s not lying to us. At least whatever America is going to let Israel do, it’s going to be done faster. So, if our end is coming, at least it’s going to come faster.
Whereas when it comes to, you know, specifically the Biden administration, the sense is that the Democrats are far more willing to allow this slower, more painful death. But the end result, no matter who it is, people are fully convinced, is exactly the same.
And all people really want right now is for this to end. People are suffocated. They’re crushed. They cannot keep going like this. And they very much feel as if, you know, no matter what it is, no matter who it is, Arabs are viewed by the United States and by the Western world as somehow being less than . . . their lives are not that valuable.
You constantly hear people in Gaza — and we were hearing the same thing in Lebanon — making comments like, “Well, you know, America, it doesn’t care if we live or die. It doesn’t care how much we suffer. Our lives don’t matter to them.” And that is not really a perspective that changes all that much, no matter who is sitting in Washington.
AMY GOODMAN: We just have 30 seconds, Arwa. Why did you give up journalism for humanitarian work? What do you think you can accomplish at INARA that you couldn’t do as a journalist?
ARWA DAMON: There’s a certain sort of privilege of being able to spend extensive periods of time with people and really get to know who they are. And I feel as if, you know, moving around in the humanitarian sphere, I’m getting a different understanding of sort of people’s emotional journeys, what it actually takes to be able to provide them with assistance.
And it’s provided me a different way of being able to continue to sort of share people’s stories and experiences, but also be able to immediately at least try to provide assistance. You know, the challenge that we have when we’re out in the field as journalists is that you don’t always see the impact.
But when you’re in the humanitarian space, there’s a certain kind of magic when you’re able to just bring a smile to a child’s face. And I needed that.
AMY GOODMAN: Arwa Damon, we thank you so much for being with us. Stay safe. An award-winning journalist, she was with CNN for 18 years but now has founded INARA, a nonprofit currently providing medical and mental healthcare to children in Gaza, speaking to us from Deir al-Balah in Gaza outside Al-Aqsa Hospital.
This article is republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.
Donald Trump literally standing before an Israeli flag and vowing to kill free speech for the advancement of Israeli information interests makes a lie of everything the so-called “MAGA movement” has ever claimed to stand for and exposes it for the scam it has always been. Image: caitlinjohnstone.com.au
COMMENTARY:By Caitlin Johnstone
There is a video of Donald Trump going around where he says — while standing in front of an Israeli flag — that in his first week in office he is going to stomp out “anti-semitic propaganda” on university campuses throughout the United States.
As anyone who has been paying attention knows, this of course means stomping out speech that is critical of Israel and its genocidal atrocities.
This clip has sparked controversy on social media, but the funny thing is it is actually a resurrected older clip from a Trump campaign event back in September.
Trump was elected while openly campaigning against free speech, even as his supporters promoted him as a champion of free speech. He campaigned on jailing flag burners as well, for the record.
Trump literally standing before an Israeli flag and vowing to kill free speech for the advancement of Israeli information interests makes a lie of everything the so-called “MAGA movement” has ever claimed to stand for and exposes it for the scam it has always been.
❖
Trump supporters are already falling all over themselves to justify his warmongering cabinet picks and his vow to crack down on freedom of assembly on college campuses, and he isn’t even president yet. These people will put zero pressure on Trump to end wars and fight authoritarianism.
They’ll bootlick and make excuses throughout the entire four years, just like they did last time. They’re not anti-establishment populists, they just want to feel like anti-establishment populists.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Trump supporters are George W Bush supporters LARPing as Ron Paul supporters.
❖
On Thursday, The New York Timesreported that Elon Musk had met with the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations on behalf of the incoming Trump administration to discuss the possibility of easing tensions in the Middle East, much to the delight of Trump supporters everywhere.
On Saturday, CNN reported that Iran says no meeting took place between its UN ambassador and Elon Musk, and Financial Timesreports that the Trump administration is actually set to ramp up aggressions against Iran as soon as Trump takes office.
Trump supporters have been citing the Musk story as evidence that Trump plans to make peace with Iran, and you can expect them to either ignore the Financial Times story or spin it as some 87-D chess manoeuvre designed to promote “peace through strength”.
Anyone who spends their time defending any US president against criticisms of their depraved empire servitude is a pathetic power-worshipping bootlicker. It’s an embarrassing, undignified way to live, and Trump apologists should feel bad about it.
❖
Love it when something happens that isn’t even in the top 100 worst things that have happened to Palestinians in the last 13 months and liberals who’ve been ignoring Gaza this entire time go I HOPE ALL YOU STUPID LEFTISTS AND MUSLIMS ARE HAPPY WITH YOUR PROTEST VOTE!
❖
Kamala Harris: I love Dick Cheney and I own a gun and I hate immigrants and anyone who stands up for Palestinians and I’ll be way more hawkish on Iran than Trump.
Liberal pundits: Kamala lost because she went way too woke.
❖
Instagram progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared on MSNBC that Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s pick for intelligence chief, is “pro-war” despite her efforts to present herself as anti-war.
This is one of those statements that’s dishonest when it comes out of the mouth of the person saying it but would be true if someone else said it.
It’s true that Gabbard is a warmongering genocide apologist who backs all the evil things Biden is doing in the middle east right now, but she’s less of a warmonger than the murderous swamp monsters AOC spent the last year endorsing and campaigning for. Gabbard at least promoted diplomacy over war in Ukraine while AOC herself promoted and defended the US proxy war from the word go.
AOC’s whole schtick is talking the talk of an anti-imperialist socialist while walking the walk of a standard empire lackey, and this is another good example of this.
❖
Everything bad that happens under the Trump administration will have happened because the Democratic Party was too corrupt and evil to run a good campaign with a good platform and a good candidate.
Security forces watch from behind barbed wire as indigenous Papuans from Merauke in the Indonesia-ruled Melanesian region protest in Jakarta last month against plans to convert indigenous and conservation lands into sugar cane plantations and rice fields. Image: Pusaka Bentala Rakyat
By Stephen Wright for Radio Free Asia
Indonesia’s plan to convert over 2 million ha of conservation and indigenous lands into agriculture will cause long-term damage to the environment, create conflict and add to greenhouse gas emissions, according to a feasibility study document for the Papua region mega-project.
The 96-page presentation reviewed by Radio Free Asia was drawn up by Sucofindo, the Indonesian government’s inspection and land surveying company.
Dated July 4, it analyses the risks and benefits of the sugar cane and rice estate in Merauke regency on Indonesia’s border with Papua New Guinea and outlines a feasibility study that was to have been completed by mid-August.
Though replete with warnings that “comprehensive” environmental impact assessments should take place before any land is cleared, the feasibility process appears to have been a box-ticking exercise. Sucofindo did not respond to questions from RFA, a news service affiliated with BenarNews, about the document.
Even before the study was completed, then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participated in a ceremony in Merauke on July 23 that marked the first sugar cane planting on land cleared of forest for the food estate, the government said in a statement.
Jokowi’s decade-long presidency ended last month.
Excavators destroy villages
In late July, dozens of excavators shipped by boat were unloaded in the Ilyawab district of Merauke where they destroyed villages and cleared forests and wetlands for rice fields, according to a report by civil society organisation Pusaka
Hipolitus Wangge, an Indonesian politics researcher at Australian National University, told RFA the feasibility study document does not provide new information about the agricultural plans.
But it makes it clear, he said, that in government there is “no specific response on how the state deals with indigenous concerns” and their consequences.
The plan to convert as much as 2.3 million ha of forest, wetland and savannah into rice farms, sugarcane plantations and related infrastructure in the conflict-prone Papua region is part of the government’s ambitions to achieve food and energy self-sufficiency.
Previous efforts in the nation of 270 million people have fallen short of expectations.
Echoing government and military statements, Sucofindo said increasingly extreme climate change and the risk of international conflict are reasons why Indonesia should reduce reliance on food imports.
Taken together, the sugarcane and rice projects represent at least a fifth of a 10,000 square km lowland area known as the TransFly that spans Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and which conservationists say is an already under-threat conservation treasure.
Military leading role
Indonesia’s military has a leading role in the 1.9 million ha rice plan while the government has courted investors for the sugar cane and related bioethanol projects.
The likelihood of conflict with indigenous Papuans or of significant and long-term environmental damage applies in about 80 percent of the area targeted for development, according to Sucofindo’s analysis.
The project’s “issues and challenges,” Sucofindo said, include “deforestation and biodiversity loss, destruction of flora and fauna habitats and loss of species”.
It warns of long-term land degradation and erosion as well as water pollution and reduced water availability during the dry season caused by deforestation.
Sucofindo said indigenous communities in Merauke rely on forests for livelihoods and land conversion will threaten their cultural survival. It repeatedly warns of the risk of conflict, which it says could stem from evictions and relocation.
“Evictions have the potential to destabilize social and economic conditions,” Sucofindo said in its presentation.
If the entire area planned for development is cleared, it would add about 392 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere in net terms, according to Sucofindo.
That is about equal to half of the additional carbon emitted by Indonesia’s fire catastrophe in 2015 when hundreds of thousands of acres of peatlands drained for pulpwood and oil palm plantations burned for months.
Then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participates in a sugar-cane planting ceremony in the Merauke regency of South Papua province in July. Image: Indonesian presidential office handout/Muchlis Jr
Indonesia’s contribution to emissions that raise the average global temperature is significantly worsened by a combination of peatland fires and deforestation. Carbon stored in its globally important tropical forests is released when cut down for palm oil, pulpwood and other plantations.
In a speech last week to the annual United Nations climate conference COP29, Indonesia’s climate envoy, a brother of recently inaugurated president Prabowo Subianto, said the new administration has a long-term goal to restore forests to 31.3 million acres severely degraded by fires in 2015 and earlier massive burnings in the 1980s and 1990s.
Indonesia’s government has made the same promise in previous years including in its official progress report on its national contribution to achieving the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the rise in average global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius.
“President Prabowo has approved in principle a program of massive reforestation to these 12.7 million hectares in a biodiverse manner,” envoy Hashim Djojohadikusumo said during the livestreamed speech from Baku, Azerbaijan.
“We will soon embark on this programme.”
Prabowo’s government has announced plans to encourage outsiders to migrate to Merauke and other parts of Indonesia’s easternmost region, state media reported this month.
Critics said such large-scale movements of people would further marginalise indigenous Papuans in their own lands and exacerbate conflict that has simmered since Indonesia took control of the region in the late 1960s.
A former New Zealand prime minister, Dame Jenny Shipley, has warned the ACT Party is “inviting civil war” with its attempt to define the principles of the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi in law.
National has said its MPs will vote against it at the second reading, after only backing it through the first as part of the coalition agreement with ACT.
ACT leader David Seymour and former prime minister Jenny Shipley . . . “You don’t just throw [the Treaty relationship] in the bin and then try and rewrite it as it suits you.” Image: Samuel Rillstone/ RNZ/Craig McCulloch
Voting on the bill was interrupted when Te Pāti Māori’s Hauraki Waikato MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up a copy of the bill and launched into a haka, inspiring other opposition MPs and members of the public gallery to join in.
Dame Jenny, who led the National Party from 1997 until 2001 and was prime minister for two of those years, threw her support behind Maipi-Clarke.
“The Treaty, when it’s come under pressure from either side, our voices have been raised,” she told RNZ’s Saturday Morning.
“I was young enough to remember Bastion Point, and look, the Treaty has helped us navigate. When people have had to raise their voice, it’s brought us back to what it’s been — an enduring relationship where people then try to find their way forward.
“And I thought the voices of this week were completely and utterly appropriate, and whether they breach standing orders, I’ll put that aside.
“The voice of Māori, that reminds us that this was an agreement, a contract — and you do not rip up a contract and then just say, ‘Well, I’m happy to rewrite it on my terms, but you don’t count.’
Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipa-Clarke led a haka in Parliament and tore up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill at the first reading in Parliament on Thursday . . . . a haka is traditionally used as an indigenous show of challenge, support or sorrow. Image: RNZ/Samuel Rillstone
“I would raise my voice. I’m proud that the National Party has said they will not be supporting this, because you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth.
“And I think any voice that’s raised, and there are many people — pākeha and Māori who are not necessarily on this hikoi — who believe that a relationship is something you keep working at. You don’t just throw it in the bin and then try and rewrite it as it suits you.”
Her comments come after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called the bill “simplistic” and “unhelpful”, and former Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson — who negotiated more settlements than any other — said letting it pass its first reading would do “great damage” to National’s relationship with Māori.
Haka disrupts the Treaty Principles Bill reading vote. Video: RNZ News
Dame Jenny said past attempts to codify Treaty principles in law had failed.
“While there have been principles leaked into individual statutes, we have never attempted to — in a formal sense — put principles in or over top of the Treaty as a collective. And I caution New Zealand — the minute you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you are inviting civil war.
“I would fight against it. Māori have every reason to fight against it.
“This is a relationship we committed to where we would try and find a way to govern forward. We would respect each other’s land and interests rights, and we would try and be citizens together — and actually, we are making outstanding progress, and this sort of malicious, politically motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to politicise the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices, because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest.
‘I condemn David Seymour for his using this, asking the public for money to fuel a campaign that I think really is going to divide New Zealand in a way that I haven’t lived through in my adult life. There’s been flashpoints, but I view this incredibly seriously.’
“And you people should be careful what they wish for. If people polarise, we will finish up in a dangerous position. The Treaty is a gift to us to invite us to work together. And look, we’ve been highly successful in doing that, despite the odd ruction on the way.”
She said New Zealand could be proud of the redress it had made to Māori, “where we accepted we had just made a terrible mess on stolen land and misused the undertakings of the Treaty, and we as a people have tried to put that right”.
“I just despise people who want to use a treasure — which is what the Treaty is to me — and use it as a political tool that drives people to the left or the right, as opposed to inform us from our history and let it deliver a future that is actually who we are as New Zealanders . . . I condemn David Seymour for his using this, asking the public for money to fuel a campaign that I think really is going to divide New Zealand in a way that I haven’t lived through in my adult life. There’s been flashpoints, but I view this incredibly seriously.”
‘Equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights’ In response, David Seymour said the bill actually sought to “solve” the problem of “treating New Zealanders based on their ethnicity”.
“Te Pāti Māori acted in complete disregard for the democratic system of which they are a part during the first reading of the bill, causing disruption, and leading to suspension of the House.
“The Treaty Principles Bill commits to protecting the rights of everyone, including Māori, and upholding Treaty settlements. It commits to give equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights to every single New Zealander.
“The challenge for people who oppose this bill is to explain why they are so opposed to those basic principles.”
On Thursday, following the passing of the bill’s first reading, he said he was looking forward to seeing what New Zealanders had to say about it during the six-month select committee process.
“The select committee process will finally democratise the debate over the Treaty which has until this point been dominated by a small number of judges, senior public servants, academics, and politicians.
“Parliament introduced the concept of the Treaty principles into law in 1975 but did not define them. As a result, the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have been able to develop principles that have been used to justify actions that are contrary to the principle of equal rights. Those actions include co-governance in the delivery of public services, ethnic quotas in public institutions, and consultation based on background.
“The principles of the Treaty are not going away. Either Parliament can define them, or the courts will continue to meddle in this area of critical political and constitutional importance.
“The purpose of the Treaty Principles Bill is for Parliament to define the principles of the Treaty, provide certainty and clarity, and promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements.”
He said the bill in no way would alter or amend the Treaty itself.
“I believe all New Zealanders deserve tino rangatiratanga — the right to self-determination. That all human beings are alike in dignity. The Treaty Principles Bill would give all New Zealanders equality before the law, so that we can go forward as one people with one set of rights.”
The Hīkoi today was in Hastings, on its way to Wellington, where it is expected to arrive on Monday.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
BACKGROUNDER: By Lillian Hanly, Craig McCulloch and Te Manu Korihi
Te Pāti Māori’s extraordinary display of protest — interrupting the first vote on the Treaty Principles Bill — has highlighted the tension in Aotearoa New Zealand between Māori tikanga, or customs, and the rules of Parliament.
When called on to cast Te Pāti Māori’s vote, its MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke instead launched into a haka, ripping a copy of the legislation in half.
She was joined by other opposition MPs and onlookers, prompting Speaker Gerry Brownlee to temporarily suspend Parliament and clear out the public gallery.
Brownlee subsequently censured Maipi-Clarke, describing her conduct as “appallingly disrespectful” and “grossly disorderly”.
Maipi-Clarke was named and suspended, barring her from voting or entering the debating chamber for a 24-hour period. She also had her pay docked.
Te Pāti Māori about to record their vote. Video: RNZ/Parliament
‘Ka mate, ka mate’ – when is it appropriate to perform haka? The Ngāti Toa haka performed in Parliament was the well-known “Ka mate, Ka mate,” which tells the story of chief Te Rauparaha who was being chased by enemies and sought shelter where he hid. Once his enemies left he came out into the light.
Ngāti Toa chief executive and rangatira Helmut Modlik told RNZ the haka was relevant to the debate. He said the bill had put Māori self-determination at risk – “ka mate, ka mate” – and Māori were reclaiming that – “ka ora, ka ora”.
Haka was not governed by rules or regulation, Modlik said. It could be used as a show of challenge, support or sorrow.
“In the modern setting, all of these possibilities are there for the use of haka, but as an expression of cultural preferences, cultural power, world view, ideas, sounds, language – it’s rather compelling.”
Modlik acknowledged that Parliament operated according to its own conventions but said the “House and its rules only exist because our chiefs said it could be here”.
“If you’re going to negate . . . the constitutional and logical basis for your House being here . . . with your legislation, then that negates your right to claim it as your own to operate as you choose.”
He argued critics were being too sensitive, akin to “complaining about the grammar being used as people are crying that the house is on fire”.
“The firemen are complaining that they weren’t orderly enough,” Modlik said. “They didn’t use the right words.”
Robust response expected
Modlik said Seymour should expect a robust response to his own passionate performance and theatre: “That’s the Pandora’s Box he’s opening”.
Following the party’s protest yesterday, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi told reporters “everyone should be proud to see [the haka] in its true context.”
“We love it when the All Blacks do it, but what about when the ‘blackies’ do it?” he said.
Today, speaking to those gathered for the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti in Rotorua, Waititi said the party used “every tool available to us to use in the debates in that House”.
“One of those tools are the Māori tools we take from our kete, which is haka, which is waiata, which is pōkeka — all of those things that our tīpuna have left us. Those are natural debating tools on the marae.”
What does Parliament’s rulebook have to say? Parliament is governed by its own set of rules known as Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings. They endow the Speaker with the power and responsibility to “maintain order and decorum” in the House.
The rules set out the procedures to be followed during a debate and subsequent vote. MPs are banned from using “offensive or disorderly words” or making a “personal reflection” against another member.
MPs can also be found in contempt of Parliament if they obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions.
Examples of contempt include assaulting, threatening or obstructing an MP, or “misconducting oneself” in the House.
Under Standing Orders, Parliament’s proceedings can be temporarily suspended “in the case of any grave disorder arising in committee”.
The Speaker may order any member “whose conduct is highly disorderly” to leave the chamber. For example, Brownlee ejected Labour MP Willie Jackson when he refused to apologise for calling Seymour a liar.
The Speaker may also “name” any member “whose conduct is grossly disorderly” and then call for MPs to vote on their suspension, as occurred in the case of Maipi-Clarke.
Members of the public gallery can also be required to leave if they interrupt proceedings or “disturb or disrupt the House”.
‘Abusing tikanga of Parliament’
Seymour has previously criticised Te Pāti Māori for abusing the “the tikanga of Parliament,” and on Thursday he called for further consequences.
“The Speaker needs to make it clear that the people of New Zealand who elect people to this Parliament have a right for their representative to be heard, not drowned out by someone doing a haka or getting in their face making shooting gestures,” Seymour said.
Former Speaker Sir Lockwood Smith told RNZ the rules existed to allow rational and sensible debate on important matters.
“Parliament makes the laws that govern all our lives, and its performance and behaviour has to be commensurate with that responsibility.
“It is not just a stoush in a pub. It is the highest court in the land and its behaviour should reflect that.”
Sir Lockwood said he respected Māori custom, but there were ways that could be expressed within the rules. He said he was also saddened by “the venom directed personally” at Seymour.
Lillian Hanly is an RNZ News political reporter, Craig McCulloch is RNZ‘s deputy political editor, and Te Manu Korihi report. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ and Asia Pacific Report.
Being pro-Israel is being pro-war, because the state of Israel cannot exist in its present iteration without nonstop US-backed military violence. Image: caitlinjohnstone.com.au
COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone
The way raw video evidence debunked the “Amsterdam pogrom” narrative in real time in full view of the entire world is exactly why Israel hates journalists. It’s why it won’t let the Western press visit Gaza, and it’s why it murders Palestinian journalists at every opportunity.
❖
Trump’s “America First” cabinet is being packed full of swamp monsters who want to pour American money into helping Israel destroy the Middle East, pour American money into the unwinnable proxy war in Ukraine, and prepare American troops to fight a war with China to defend Taiwan.
❖
And just as we’re reacting to the news of Trump filling his new cabinet with murderous warmongers, the Biden administration comes in with a helpful reminder that they too are evil blood-soaked monsters. The White House has announced that it will be imposing zero consequences on Israel for failing to abide by its 30-day deadline to let more aide into Gaza. The “deadline” was a phony election ploy, just as we said it was at the time.
Friendly reminder that Biden could still end the genocide in Gaza right now. He could end it today. He could have ended it any day over the last thirteen months. Israel’s atrocities will continue into the next administration because the Biden administration wants them to.
❖
Everything American liberals are worried will be done to them by the Trump administration are things that were done to people in other countries by the Biden administration.
❖
Anyone who supported Trump on anti-war grounds already has more than enough evidence to stop doing so. If you’re still supporting him after his cabinet picks thus far you’re going to support him no matter what he does on foreign policy, because you don’t really care about peace — you just care about your favorite political party winning.
❖
I’m already getting Trump supporters all over my replies telling me that the hawkish inclinations I’m seeing from the incoming administration aren’t what they look like. They did this throughout his entire first term. Four fucking years of morons telling me the insane acts of warmongering I was witnessing were actually fine and good, or even brilliant strategic maneuvers against the deep state warmongers. Really not looking forward to another four years of this shit.
❖
Being pro-Israel is being pro-war, because the state of Israel cannot exist in its present iteration without nonstop US-backed military violence. Supporting Israel necessarily means supporting endless Western military interventionism in the Middle East. Trump supporters keep lying to themselves about this.
It was obvious that Trump’s “anti-neocon” schtick was bullshit even before his cabinet picks. You cannot be “anti-neocon” and also be Israel’s BFF. That’s not a thing. US military support for Israel is absolutely central to the neoconservative ideology — just research the history of neocons and PNAC (Project for the New American Century). Trump and his allies talk a big game about massively unpopular Bush-era neocons, but Trump has always been fully aligned with those same neocons on Israeli warmongering. He had actual PNAC members in his cabinet like Elliott Abrams and John Bolton for fuck’s sake, and he has openly admitted to being bought and owned by the Adelsons.
So the Trump faction is doing this weird cognitive dissonance straddle where they’re more or less completely aligned with the neocons on middle east policy (and China policy as well for the record) while posturing as big opponents of neoconservatives and warmongers. There is a faction of the “MAGA” movement which is anti-Israel, or at least anti US aid for Israel, but they are a much smaller and far less powerful contingent. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
❖
When people defend the Gaza genocide by saying “those Arabs hate gay people” or whatever, they’re admitting that they think someone having different beliefs than their own justifies wiping out their entire population.
You normally hear this argument from right wing Israel supporters speaking to left-wing Palestine supporters. They assume it’s a debate-winning argument because they know leftists support LGBTQ rights, so upon hearing this the leftist will say “Oh okay, we’ll kill them all then.”
Leaving aside the premise that all Palestinians hate gay people (which is of course silly), the fact that they project this assumption onto others says a lot about their own worldview. Anyone making this argument is telling you they would support the mass military slaughter of you and everyone who thinks like you if given the opportunity, because they believe those who think differently than themselves should be exterminated.
❖
Leftists, liberals and rightists all mean very different things when they say they support free speech.
When an anti-imperialist socialist says they support free speech, they mean they want the freedom to hold power to account, scrutinise their government’s actions, and share dissident ideas and information. This is the original reason freedom of speech has been enshrined as an important value in our society, and it’s why leftists (the real kind) aggressively defend it.
When a rightist says they support free speech, they typically mean they want to be able to say racist things without any consequences and make mean jokes about trans people on social media. It’s less about holding power to account and more about being able to say what you want wherever you want for its own sake, because not being allowed to say what you want doesn’t feel very nice. This is what you’re looking at when you see Trump talking about the importance of free speech rights while also saying he wants to jail people for burning the American flag and telling donors he’ll crack down on pro-Palestine protests. He’s not promising the freedom to speak truth to power, he’s promising the freedom to say racial slurs.
When a liberal says they support free speech, they typically mean they support free speech for themselves and people who think like them, and for the citizens of enemy countries like Iran and China. They’re more than happy to see speech critical of the powerful curbed in the name of stopping “disinformation” or “Russian propaganda”. They support Silicon Valley tech platforms collaborating intimately with US government agencies to suppress dissident ideas and information, so long as doing so doesn’t benefit a rival political faction. They believe their worldview is the way, the truth and the light, and that information needs to circulate in a way that helps others believe this too.
There are of course exceptions and variations on this; American libertarians are often an odd hybrid of the leftist and rightist schools of thought on free speech, for example. It’s good to be aware that when someone says they support free speech, they could mean something very, very different from what you mean when you say it.
The series was assisted by Pacific journalist David Robie, author of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior; and editor Giff Johnson, Eve Burns and Hilary Hosia of the Marshall Islands Journal; along with many Marshall Islanders who spoke to the podcast crew or helped with this project.
Episode 1: The other Cold War (13 November 2024)
The crew of the Rainbow Warrior should have felt safe and welcome when they arrived in Auckland, New Zealand. We all know what happened next, and who was responsible. But how much do you know about what went down before that?
Episode 2: The Day of Two Suns (13 November 2024)
The Atomic Age arrives in the Marshall Islands as the US turns the region into a nuclear testing ground. But after one massive detonation, nothing will ever be the same for the people of Rongelap Atoll.
Episode 3: Project 4.1
In the days after the Castle Bravo detonation, the people of Rongelap desperately need help. It arrived. But with that help came something they didn’t expect, and never agreed to.
Episode 4: The Land and the Soul
Jeton Anjain has had enough. He decides to act to save his people. And with the help of some well-connected friends, he pulls off one of the great humanitarian acts of the 20th century.
Episode 5: Operation Satanique
Back in New Zealand, public anger is at its peak as the hunt begins for those responsible for bombing the Rainbow Warrior. Shockwaves ripple across the globe when it’s discovered who did it.
Episode 6: Legacies
The people of Rongelap have a new, safer home. But at what cost? What does the future hold? And can they ever go home again?
President Joe Biden has been facilitating Israeli atrocities in the Middle East with US military expansionism in the region and bombing operations in Yemen, Iraq and Syria. He will spend his lame duck months backing Israel’s scorched earth demolition of southern Lebanon. Image: caitlinjohnstone.com.au
COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone
Biden’s legacy is genocide, war, and nuclear brinkmanship. That’s all anyone should talk about when this psychopath finally dies.
Anything positive he may have accomplished in his political career is a drop in the ocean compared to the significance of these mass-scale abuses.
In the early weeks of the conflict Biden and his fellow empire managers sabotaged peace talks to keep the war going for as long as possible with the goal of bleeding Moscow, and at one point his own intelligence agencies reportedly assessed that the probability of a nuclear war erupting on this front was as high as 50–50.
Coin toss odds on nuclear war. To call this a crime against humanity would be a massive understatement.
Biden has been facilitating Israeli atrocities in the Middle East with US military expansionism in the region and bombing operations in Yemen, Iraq and Syria. He will spend his lame duck months backing Israel’s scorched earth demolition of southern Lebanon.
Pivotal role over Iraq
This is who Biden is. It is who he has always been. It is true that his brain has begun to rot away just like his conscience has rotted, but in his lucid moments he adamantly defends his administration’s decisions as the only correct course of action, and it aligns perfectly with his past.
The Newcastle coal port 24-hour blockade protest in 2023 . . . conducted safely and in cooperation with police. Image: Lee Illfield/Michael West Media
The NSW Supreme Court has issued orders prohibiting a major climate protest that would blockade ships entering the world’s largest coal port in Newcastle for 30 hours. Despite the court ruling, Wendy Bacon reports that the protest will still go ahead next week.
SPECIAL REPORT: By Wendy Bacon
In a decision delivered last Thursday, Justice Desmond Fagan in the NSW Supreme Court ruled in favour of state police who applied to have the Rising Tide ‘Protestival’ planned from November 22 to 24 declared an “unauthorised assembly”.
Rising Tide has vowed to continue its protest. The grassroots movement is calling for an end to new coal and gas approvals and imposing a 78 percent tax on coal and gas export profits to fund and support Australian workers during the energy transition.
The group had submitted what is known as a “Form 1” to the police for approval for a 30-hour blockade of the port and a four-day camp on the foreshore.
If approved, the protest could go ahead without police being able to use powers of arrest for offences such as “failure to move on” during the protest.
Rising Tide organisers expect thousands to attend of whom hundreds would enter the water in kayaks and other vessels to block the harbour.
Last year, a similar 24-hour blockade protest was conducted safely and in cooperation with police, after which 109 people refused to leave the water in an act of peaceful civil disobedience. They were then arrested without incident. Most were later given good behaviour bonds with no conviction recorded.
Following the judgment, Rising Tide organiser Zack Schofield said that although the group was disappointed, “the protestival will go ahead within our rights to peaceful assembly on land and water, which is legal in NSW with or without a Form 1.”
Main issue ‘climate pollution’
“The main public safety issue here is the climate pollution caused by the continued expansion of the coal and gas industries. That’s why we are protesting in our own backyard — the Newcastle coal port, scene of Australia’s single biggest contribution to climate change.”
In his judgment, Justice Desmond Fagan affirmed that protesting without a permit is lawful.
In refusing the application, he described the planned action as “excessive”.
“A 30-hour interruption to the operations of a busy port is an imposition on the lawful activities of others that goes far beyond what the people affected should be expected to tolerate in order to facilitate public expression of protest and opinion on the important issues with which the organisers are concerned,” he said.
During the case, Rising Tide’s barrister Neal Funnell argued that in weighing the impacts, the court should take into account “a vast body of evidence as to the cost of the economic impact of global warming and particularly the role the fossil fuel industry plays in that.“
But while agreeing that coal is “extremely detrimental to the atmosphere and biosphere and our future, Justice Fagan indicated that his decision would only take into account the immediate impacts of the protest, not “the economic effect of the activity of burning coal in power plants in whatever countries this coal is freighted to from the port of Newcastle”.
Protest organisers outside NSW Court last week. Image: Michael West Media
NSW Police argued that the risks to safety outweighed the right to protest.
Rising Tide barrister Neal Funnell told the court that the group did not deny that there were inherent risks in protests on water but pointed to evidence that showed police logs revealed no safety concerns or incidents during the 2023 protest.
Although he accepted the police argument about safety risks, Justice Fagan acknowledged that the “organisers of Rising Tide have taken a responsible approach to on-water safety by preparing very thorough plans and protocols, by engaging members of supportive organisations to attend with outboard motor driven rescue craft and by enlisting the assistance of trained lifeguards”.
The Court’s reasons are not to be understood as a direction to terminate the protest.
NSW government opposition
Overshadowing the case were statements by NSW Premier Chris Minns, who recently threatened to make costs of policing a reason why permits to protest could be refused.
Last week, Minns said the protest was opposed because it was dangerous and would impact the economy, suggesting further government action could follow to protect coal infrastructure.
“I think the government’s going to have to make some decisions in the next few weeks about protecting that coal line and ensuring the economy doesn’t close down as a result of this protest activity,” he said.
Greens MP and spokesperson for climate change and justice Sue Higginson, who attended last year’s Rising Tide protest, said, “ It’s the second time in the past few weeks that police have sought to use the court to prohibit a public protest event with the full support of the Premier of this State . . . ”
Higginson hit back at Premier Chris Minns: “Under the laws of NSW, it’s not the job of the Premier or the Police to say where, when and how people can protest. It is the job of the Police and the Premier to serve the people and work with organisers to facilitate a safe and effective event.
“Today, the Premier and the Police have thrown this obligation back in our faces. What we have seen are the tactics of authoritarian politics attempting to silence the people.
“It is telling that the NSW Government would rather seek to silence the community and protect their profits from exporting the climate crisis straight through the Port of Newcastle rather than support our grassroots communities, embrace the right to protest, take firm action to end coal exports and transition our economy.”
Limits of police authorised protests Hundreds of protests take place in NSW each year using Form 1s. Many other assemblies happen without a Form 1 application. But the process places the power over protests in the hands of police and the courts.
In a situation in which NSW has no charter of human rights that protects the right to protest, Justice Fagan’s decision exposes the limits of the Form 1 approach to protests.
NSW Council for Civil Liberties is one of more than 20 organisations that supported the Rising Tide case.
In response to the prohibition order, its Vice-President Lidia Shelly said, “Rising Tide submitted a Form 1 application so that NSW Police could work with the organisers to ensure the safety of the public.
“The organisers did everything right in accordance with the law. It’s responsible and peaceful protesting. Instead, the police dragged the organisers to Court and furthered the public’s perception that they’re acting under political pressure to protect the interests of the fossil fuel industry.”
Shelly said, “In denying the Form 1, NSW Police have created a perfect environment for mass arrests of peaceful protestors to occur . . .
“The right to peaceful assembly is a core human right protected under international law. NSW desperately needs a state-based charter of human rights that protects the right to protest.
“The current Form 1 regime in New South Wales is designed to repress the public from exercising their democratic rights to protest. We reiterate our call to the NSW Government to repeal the draconian anti-protest laws, abolish the Form 1 regime, protect independent legal observers, and introduce a Human Rights Act that enshrines the right to protest.”
Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at University of Technology Sydney (UTS). She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS movement and the Greens. Republished with the permission of the author.
