Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 січ 2025
- Best of BHN from our January Episode
Chloe Swarbrick and Brooke van Velden clash on Breakfast over ACT's Treaty Principles Bill
=================================
Come support the work we're doing by becoming a Patron of #BHN www.patreon.com/BigHairyNews
=================================
Merch available at www.BHNShop.nz
Like us on Facebook
BigHairyNews
Follow us on Twitter.
@patbrittenden
@Chewie_NZ
Follow us on Bluesky
Pat @patbrittenden.bsky.social
Chewie @chewienz.bsky.social
Emily @iamprettyawesome.bsky.social
Magenta @xkaosmagex.bsky.social
Brook van Velden speaks with that fake vocal fry which takes any sincerity out of what she says.
funny how the majority of nzers do not want this bill or changes, act are not listening to all the people
The majority know it won't be going anywhere, there's Winston's one that follows next year, that'll be interesting to see when it happens.
@@id10tsame62 that's irrelevant. No bill passes with 100% support and zero against, especially when you have people against it who are spreading misinformation about it's true intent
Let's say that ACT get their way with their principles bill. What's the next step for Seymour? Repealing the RMA? Repealing anti-nuclear legislation?
If Seymour wants a conversation about race relations, then I want one about NZ corporate tax rates.
It all comes back to money when talking about Act. Seymour will support NZ First to search for rare metals, oil & gas on DOC land using Fast track legislation. They won’t have the Iwis to contend with anymore, let alone the Public at large.
The Treaty is not in question. It is a fact and commitment, to which we as kiwis ARE legally obliged to uphold it. We did that, we live with it. So here is the only conscionable thing to do ... do not agree with the T.P.B; there is no division, other than what ACT has whipped up.
BVV is just an overpaid PA . ACT is about Seymour the rest are less than useless/. Went to one of her meetings and after confronting her on issues it was abundantly clear that she was/is clueless
Well put! I have seen that comment in many places.
@@christinatay832 And on over 220k per year. If Seymour wants to cut government spending , start with hs deputy leader.
DR. David White of Massey University research of the period 2003 to 2018 showed property investor caused property prices to be inflated. So the changes to Brightline test and interest deductibility favour the property investors and so could inflate property prices more again.
That was always the plan. Halting the construction of all public housing will add further scarcity to push house prices up even more. They're not called the Landlord Party for nothing.
I would like to know Brook vV’s credentials on the TOW - what is her knowledge, experience, background, history that makes her an expert on the TOW?
No one in ACT is an expert on the TOW. For a start ACT are claiming that honouring the TOW is showing favouritism based on race. Unfortunately for ACT, all treateies, by definition, are signed between two or more sovereign nations. The fact is taht on the signatories to the treaty had brown skin is just coincedental. The only racist in this argument are ACT. They are making this an argumenta bout race when, according to the official dictionary definition, the TOW cannot possibly be about race.
Thanks!
Thank you Brooke keep up your great work.
Seymour wants to to rewrite the treaty? Big move for ACT
Van Velden... where's that name from? Not South African/Dutch, is it? The country that has the worst recent track record when it comes to treating the native people of the land? Apartheid was bad then, and we don't want racist South African politics here...
Can we have a capital gains tax referendum first?
But that would mean everyone gets treated equally. Workers already pay taxes in this country. If we had a capital gains tax then rich people and landlords would have to pay tax too.
@@raywheeler3135 Well no, it wouldn't mean everyone is treated equally, that's a strange thing to say.
It would just mean rich people pay more tax on their wealth.
It would be a step towards addressing specifically wealth inequality but there would still be many things that need to be worked on to reduce inequality overall.
Same rights different results according to your background, try going to court without a flash lawyer and with one.
I don't know Van Velden's background but she comes across as totally out of touch with Crown Māori relations. This is not about race - it's about righting historical wrongs that most acknowledge should be addressed. This is Act, NZ First and National's drive to privatise the country. Get rid of the Treaty obligations and the environmental protections and that is easier to do. Starving the public sector and making it look incapable is another way to get that done. Give them another term and you'll see the private sector delivering just about all Government services.
5:47 sounds like something a Pharisee would say and we know they want to play god.
Let's go! Our Queen Chloe.
Butch queen chloe you mean, get it right tiger.
@stevehughes1510 What do her looks have to do with her abilities and policies? 70s called, they want your opinions back, Sport.
@@stevehughes1510 Effeminant Steve Hughes you mean, get it right tiger.
Our Queen indeed ❤
She's crazy weird, doesn't deserve the money they give her corrupt
To enter the conversation on the wrong pretence is always a false argument.
We cannot use the terms Crown and Maori together.
We can use English and Maori because the Crown is English.
If we use the term Crown then we use the term Chiefs as the agreement is between those two governing structures.
Purposely using race in this case 'Maori' and a representation i.e. 'The Crown' is of false pretence to divert the truth. It would be equivalent yet more appropriate in the use of 'English and Native Chiefs'
All you have to do is look at the shoes!
My tipuna Pōmare signed He Whakaputanga 28.10.1835 and Te Tiriti 17.2.1840. Pōmare believed he had not given up any sovereignty and stated that he was not able to in any case, as it belonged to all of his iwi (J.Clendon). He Whakaputanga Article 2: The sovereignty/kingship (Kīngitanga) and the mana from the land of the Confederation of New Zealand are here declared to belong solely to the true leaders (Tino Rangatira). Te Tiriti Article 2: Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess.
China-ancestory, Japan-ancestry, Spain ancestry, Italy-ancestry, Scotland-ancestry, Egypt-ancestry, Dubai-ancestry, ENGLISH MONARCHY! THE CROWN! ANCESTRY, etc!!! That's a ridiculous speil! She talks to a group of people who don't want to live in a country based on ancestry, then FO to America or Australia where they are run by governments who suppress their "ANCESTRY" because their Ancestry is English 🤣🤣🤣
No way why should a recent immigrant get the same as a 4th generation NZer
Im back!.....both parties have not honoured the treaty......the original intention of the treay has been warped by a certain few who basically are out to suck on the tit of hard working New Zealanders....they are well off base and wont pull the wool over my and most New Zealanders eyes....by the way this country is and will always be New Zealand !
🔔★LIKE-SUBSCRIBE-SHARE★🔔
Shit this is so anti-pharking everything... outta here!
A referendum is what is needed.....bring it on!
A referendum is a waste of time. It can’t change a contract.
In this case a referendum will be undemocratic anyway. It will be more like a case of the bigger boy beating up on the smaller boy. Much like a bully does.
However if all Hapu and Iwi get together (one side of the signing of the Treaty) and decide that a referendum is needed - then yes - alongside the Crown …...
Divisive Dave is fully aware of this and is relying on the feeble mindedness of the average kiwi non Maori punter to push his divisive viewpoint across.
Are you one of those magpies?
A referendum on CGT is what is actually needed.
@@itcouldbelupus2842
The average (racist) ACT supporter will not agree with this. They are the ones benefitting from no CGT.
However as there is no Treaty (contract) to break - it would be a wonderful idea.
Do you think Divisive Dave would go for this with as much racist zeal as he is with the Treaty Bill?
He is hardly divisive when his approach is equality for all New Zealanders regardless of race .....not getting drawn in to a debate I'm just giving my point of view ..cheers
how do you make up unequal treatment or ethnicities though?
Not sure what you mean?
@@KevinMorrell-ke7px
maori are historically and actually disadvantaged, how else if bot the treaty would you want to make up for that?
I disagree
@@TheMntnG You don't know what you're writing about, maori disadvantaged ??, no way jose.
We need to see this in a different way? How, why? You forgot what you wanted to say? And you mock seymour, lol go look at it properly. Nearly everyone didnt even know why they were at the hui and the ithers were lied to by maori party.
That's complete nonsense, everyone knew why they were there.
@itcouldbelupus2842 that's a misleading way of putting it or maybe you have taken my comment out of context....... Of course everyone knew why they were there, some went because the Maori party said so, others went because their mates were going, some went to protest that knew insignia ban, others just went, some went because they either incorrectly interpreted the proposal or were misled by people who have an anti government narrative. Alot of people thought the treaty was being changed. Why wouldn't you want equality for all new Zealanders? We are all from here
@@Yeahright666- - oh sure, the treaty isn't being changed, just the meaning of all the words of the treaty would be redefined to mean new, David Seymour things that bear no resemblance to the document as signed. The principles of partnership, participation and protection for Iwi would be rewritten to mean no partnership, no participation and no protection for Iwi. Don't believe Seymour's lies, he's not interested in equality for all NZers, he wants to remove all barriers to foreign wealth extraction of this country's resources and the Treaty is a roadblock.