Act’s David Seymour, NZ First’s Shane Jones and the battles of Waitangi

Which is sort of true, but the central meaning is more literal: Hamlet’s father is murdered by poison poured into his ear.

Violence, of that or any other kind, is absent at Waitangi, and there are reasons for it. We’ll come back to this.

Seymour got a rough reception. During the wero, or challenge, the warriors came up so close, NZ First MP Shane Jones decided it would be a good idea to accompany him to pick up the taki, or offered branch.

Seymour said afterwards he did not need a bodyguard and he had not heard that Jones has the credentials to be one.

On the paepae, when Seymour spoke, Toitū te Tiriti protesters lined up in rows in front of the tangata whenua seated under the marquee, and turned their backs on him. They were draped in bright red blankets embroidered with slogans and some of them sang over his speech. Police in their mufti uniforms joined them, firmly but discreetly.

The microphone was moved away from Seymour, twice, by Ngāpuhi kaumatua Aperahama Edwards, and moved back both times by Ngāpuhi kaumatua Waihoroi Shortland. The iwi had debated the idea the previous day, without being able to agree whether to do it.

After he’d spoken, the Toitū te Tiriti group burst into the protest anthem Ngā Iwi E.

Seymour’s argument, presented in brief, is that Māori suffer in all the statistics of social and economic wellbeing because the Treaty of Waitangi is interpreted to mean Māori have special rights. There weren’t many people present who seemed to agree with, or even understand, a lick of that.

His purpose, however, is to present himself as an eminently reasonable man. The more unruly the protest, the more it suits him. And he wants the issue to stay alive as long as possible.

Jones was beside himself at all this. He attacked the mana whenua for moving the mic, for allowing shouting and getting too close during the challenge, for allowing people to turn their backs during the speeches, for turning the whole thing into “a circus”.

“Pōwhiri have allowed opponents to tally a list of woes and grievances,” he said. “If they want a circus, they should move the whole thing back to Te Tii.” That’s the lower marae on the other side of the Paihia bridge. Events were moved to the upper marae, outside Te Whare Rūnanga and the original Mission House, in 2018.

Jones possibly has more knowledge of tikanga and the history of Waitangi than anyone else there today. So I quibble at my peril.

But watching from the outside, what I see is a highly ritualised and highly passionate affair, where tikanga obliges everyone involved to vent their passions within prescribed limits. It’s supremely angry, supremely organised, non-violent protest.

In my view, that’s pretty magnificent.

And in passing, it makes a mockery of Seymour’s repeated inflammatory references to haka as war dances. That might be the origin story of haka, but it’s not what happens today. Haka are not a declaration of war.

And has Jones really forgotten? Waitangi has long featured the airing of grievances. When events were focused on the lower marae, things were thrown at politicians and visiting royals, there were police blockades on the bridge that protesters fought hard to break through.

All of that is qualitatively different from a fierce wero and turning your back on a speaker.

And bear in mind, the frustration with Seymour and his bill is immense. What are their opponents supposed to do? The evolution of tikanga-based, credible and yet effective protest will continue.

Jones didn’t help matters when he complained he had just approved $10 million in funding for Ngāpuhi projects, so they should stop the “circus”. That’s bullying far worse than anything pulled out in the pōwhiri today.

And Potaka? He declared to media he was “absolutely” committed to coming to Waitangi every year he was minister. The implication: it’s part of his job. The other implication: it’s part of the Prime Minister’s job, too.

Several times, he described Te Pāti Māori’s plan for an independent parliamentary commissioner for the Treaty as “an interesting idea”.

That proposal was launched yesterday and quickly and widely misrepresented. A “bottom line” in any future coalition negotiations, said some. In fact, when asked directly about that, co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer chose her words carefully.

“Defending Te Tiriti is always a bottom line for us,” she said, which is a different thing and should not surprise anyone because it’s what they say almost every day.

On the paepae, Potaka spoke for the National Party and his first topic, after the rhetorical formalities, was himself. “We have heard that Tama’s ears have been pulled,” he said. “That he is the meat in the sandwich and that he is caught between a rock and a hard place.”

If you want metaphors, turns out Tama’s your man.

His point was that he knows people think he’s in an awkward position, as a respected iwi leader having to defend his party’s role in enabling all the anger stirred up by the Treaty Principles Bill.

But, he said, speaking for his caucus colleagues but, pointedly, surely not for his boss, “We have come here in person, to feel the sweat on the forehead”.

He’s “a loyalist”, he said. He stands by his party and he believes it is doing good work.

The big news so far is that last year’s big crowds haven’t turned up. Last year the Treaty Principles Bill hadn’t been ruled out by National and was inflaming passions all over the country. It was a very hot topic.

Maybe now everyone feels they’ve said and heard all they need to say and hear.

That would mean Jones and his boss Winston Peters have already got the thing they want. They both promised again today that the Treaty Principles Bill will die, and they issued a plea: forget the bill, it’s time to move on.

Poisonous words, poured into Seymour’s ears?