The Stuff team didn’t bring out the big headline type to report on a party political commitment of profound importance to anyone who cares about how and by whom we are governed. That – of course – should be everyone.
Stuff didn’t mention this commitment in the Dominion-Post (flagship of the Stuff fleet) – at least, Point of Order failed to find an account of it in our copy this morning, but maybe it was tucked away somewhere between some ads. Or maybe the press release around 7:09 last night was too late.
An online Stuff report did report it but its headline brought the Maori Party’s highly predictable response into the reckoning: New ACT Party policy branded ‘divisive’ and ‘bigoted’ by Māori Party
The online report opened:
A new ACT Party policy calling for “a referendum on co-governance” has been branded “divisive”, “bigoted” and “appealing to racists” by the Māori Party.
Thus the emphasis was heaped not on ACT’s announcement of a commitment to strengthening our democracy and to enabling voters to determine how we are governed.
Stuff opted, rather, to highlight the hostile position of a party whose leadership does not enthusiastically champion democracy.
According to Newshub, Maori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi has declared:
“We need to start looking at how Maori can participate more equally and equitably in that particular space in a tiriti-centric Aotearoa. Not in a democracy, because… democracy is majority rules, and indigenous peoples – especially Maori at 16 percent of the population in this country – will lose out, and we’ll sit in second-place again.”
Let the record show that ACT won 7.6% of the party vote at the general election in 2020 and holds 10 seats in Parliament. The Maori Party vote declined from 1.18% in 2017 to 1.17% in 2020. They won the Maori electorate of Waiariki, giving them the right to bring a second MP into Parliament.
ACT’s proposals to buttress our democracy are:
* At the next election, it will be campaigning for a referendum on co-governance (a sure way of measuring the strength of support for the insidious expansion of Crown-tribe co-governance arrangements under recent governments).
* The next Government should pass legislation defining the Principles of the Treaty, in particularly their effect on democratic institutions. Then the people should be asked to vote on it becoming law.
Seymour said:
“This is what we did this with the End of Life Choice Act, Parliament passed the law and the people ratified it at referendum.
“ACT has been listening to New Zealanders. As I travelled the country on our “Honest Conversations Tour” co-governance was an issue I heard about time and again.
“The great promise of New Zealand is that everyone’s equal. For generations people have travelled long distances to give their children a better tomorrow in this little country where everyone gets an equal chance.”
Seymour contended that Labour is trying to make New Zealand an unequal society on purpose.
“It believes there are two types of New Zealanders. Tangata Whenua, who are here by right, and Tangata Tiriti who are lucky to be here.”
He rejects this because:
“No society in history has succeeded by having different political rights based on birth. Many New Zealanders came here to escape class and caste and apartheid.
“All of the good political movements of the past four hundred years have been about ending discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex and sexuality to treat each person with the same dignity. We are the first country in history that’s achieved equal rights and has division as its official policy. It’s nuts.”
Then he raised the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi and its vexing flexibility, so that it means whatever the government of the day says it means.
The Treaty Principles Act would define the Principles of the Treaty as.
1 All citizens of New Zealand have the same political rights and duties
2 All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot
3 New Zealand is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy where discrimination based on ethnicity is illegal
“For the avoidance of doubt, these principles prevail over any contradictory enactment by Parliament, or finding on the matter of Treaty Principles by the Courts.
“If a majority of electors voting in a referendum support this Act coming into force, this Act would come into force on date on which the official result of that referendum is declared.
“The effect of the referendum would be to flip the debate on our constitutional future.”
Over the past 40 years, Seymour said, the courts and Waitangi Tribunal have quietly made co-governance our unquestioned and unquestionable destiny.
Enough is enough.
“In a public debate they would be flushed out. They would have to explain why they believe some people are born with different political rights and duties. They would have to explain why some political authority should come from sources other than free and fair elections with universal suffrage.
“That is a debate worth having.”
Seymour predicts there would be one of two outcomes.
* One is that the world has gone mad, people really do want to be part of a quaint and illiberal South Pacific constitutional experiment. Our future would be bleak, but we’d know where we stand.
* Much more likely, we would assert as a country that we are a modern, multi-ethnic, liberal democracy looking to go forward in the world.
“By ending the obsession with constitutional reform, we could get stuck into the real problems in education, housing, welfare and crime that Māori get the worst end of. We would use innovative and practical solutions that change real peoples’ lives for the better. Charter schools were just the start of that.
“Something else far more important would happen. People who feel alienated would find a place in the Kiwi identity. Māori culture could be taken for what it is, a rich and essential part of New Zealand’s tapestry that is no threat but there to be embraced, along with every other culture that makes up our country.
“ACT says every child born in New Zealand, and everyone legal immigrant, has the same rights. Those are the rights of a citizen. Nobody should get an extra say because of who their great grandparents were. Nobody should have to be treated differently because of who they are.”
ACT has launched a petition that can be found at www.act.org.nz/treaty
8 comments:
“A new ACT Party policy calling for “a referendum on co-governance” has been branded “divisive”, “bigoted” and “appealing to racists” by the Māori Party.”
A more divisive, bigoted, and racist party than the Maori Party could not be found.
“Stuff opted, rather, to highlight the hostile position of a party whose leadership does not enthusiastically champion democracy.”
Likewise with a divisive, bigoted racist media source.
Why has it taken ACT this long to raise this topic? Its not as if it hasn’t been at the forefront, apart from the msm.
Finally, a mainstream political party nailing its colours to the mast over co-governance.
What most of us have been waiting for.
As long as ACT make it an unconditional requirement of a deal with National then the country will hopefully get its say - one way or the other.
I heard David Seymour on 3ZB early Friday morning so recorded TV1 news that night to see how they covered it. Nothing.... lots of feel good crap about absolutely nothing but a story that effects the future of NZ not a cracker. The whole production staff and presenters should be ashamed to call themselves news reporters. Team of $55 million. Kiwialan.
As I have posted previously,
relevant to this debate is a comment that I read on Stuff :-
"A new ACT Party policy calling for “a referendum on co-governance” has been branded “divisive”, “bigoted” and “appealing to racists” by the Māori Party."
This is George Orwell doublespeak !! "Co-governance" itself, by it's very definition, is "divisive" and "appealing to racists". The racists in this case being the Maori Party.
Co-governance is actually Maori sovereignty under another name. The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in good faith by the tribal chiefs and the Crown, quite clearly accepted the Queen as sovereign.
So clearly the "co-governance" invention is both racist and also a clear breach of the Treaty.
It warrants repeating:-
The so-called "co-governance" (an invented word) model, so loved by our current government, is actually slow motion Maori sovereignty in thin disguise.
The words of the Treaty (the real one from 1840) make it clear that:-
1/ All the chiefs who signed the Treaty were ceding total (i.e. all) sovereignty to the Crown. and
2/ That the Treaty granted many rights to ALL NEW ZEALANDERS.
Therefore, any "co-governance" of anything in New Zealand is actually a breach of the Crown's sovereignty, and an egregious breach of the Treaty !!!
At last we have a Party actually listening to the concerns of mainstream New Zealanders about the ongoing demands for racial preference. We are becoming a divided nation thanks to the antics of the left and the apathy or incompetence of National.
So now New Zealanders have a chance to do something about it even if the mainstream media either ignore or play down ACT's proposals.
This referendum proposal should be part of a wider discussion of the concept of Direct Democracy where citizens can block proposed government legislation and initiate binding referenda.
If we had Swiss style Direct Democracy in New Zealand a lot of the divisive issues prevailing in New Zealand would have been effectively dealt with long ago.
So I say Sleepers Awake and save yourselves and save the country as well!
Maori make up 16% of the population but the Maori party can only attract a little over 1% of the electorate vote. How can this party claim to represent Maori?
Thank you both Denis McCarthy and Victor Hansen. Practical Airs of Wisdom both.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.