These people do not represent most Maori people (let alone all New Zealanders). It is meant to draw attention, and it is very obvious and obnoxious. Most people, watching from a safe distance, are taken aback, by the open mouths and rolling eyes, because it seems to look like a cannibal ritual. (which it is, akshully, but that's raciss. Mods - fact check: Before being 'discovered' by a Dutchman and named, New Zealand was known as the Cannibal Isles.)

So we had a stone age culture, who dressed in flax, did not have pottery for drinking vessels or storage, did not have iron, and were eating each other in frequent revenge. One battlefield suffered casualties from over-eating, and was only left when the stink overwhelmed the senses.

And the main artifacts left behind are war-clubs designed for spltting heads, and shrunken heads. The tribal wars of the time (1840) had claimed 1/3 of the population, including targeting an older tribe in the South (Moriori) who had withdrawn to remote islands in a vow of peace. Today those claiming Moriori blood look white, because their ancestors hid in white houses.

So the Treaty was to proclaim the crown, and its resources, as sovereign - no more squabbling between subjects. The last cannibalism victim was a revenge-eat, in the 1920's. The treaty Maori and their eescendants the same rights as everyone who is a subject of the Crown. which in context, was quite revolutionary and enlightened. The theory was that everyone had the same rights, even if they had only put on a new suit of clothes for the first time and traded with coins just now now.

Oh, and the Hikoi (march)? They drove cars, or MOTOKA with WIRI (motorcar with wheels).

Seymour believes that the Treaty of Waitangi can be discussed and debated.

The Treaty stood for 135 years until 1975 when the then-Labour Government passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The Treaty of Waitangi Act stated the Treaty had principles, and it was the job of the Waitangi Tribunal to interpret them. Since then, the Tribunal, the courts, and the public service have gradually built up the principles, but New Zealanders as a whole have never been democratically consulted on these Treaty principles.

The Treaty Principles Bill will not change the Treaty itself. That was set in 1840 and will remain forever. What we are seeking to do is continue the process of defining the Treaty principles, for the first time incorporating the voices of all people through a democratic Parliamentary process, instead of through the Tribunal or the courts. https://www.treaty.nz/

As he points out: in 1975 an Act stated that the Treaty had principles, which then had to be elaborated through case law. His point was: We should all be able to at least talk about what has happened since 1975. However, much as I believe some sunlight is needed, I stand with the NZ First angle: that the Treaty does not have principles, only Articles.

How this will play out, I don't know. There were a few groups of flag-wavers claiming that the Act party are trying to 'change' the Treaty, that it somehow only belongs to them.