FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN ACT’s POLICY allows Courts to replace Democracy.
The latest twist in law-making in New Zealand, firmly elevates the Courts above the Sovereignty of Parliament.
The Supreme Court decision in the Peter Ellis case (1) case, according to MSM “reaffirms” Maori Customary Law over Statutory Law.
Audrey Young somehow got Grannie Herald to publish her bombshell on this abuse of position by the Courts. (2) [I acknowledge that many don’t read pay to read premium viz Herald, having been turned off by the haemorrhaging Maori terminology this once great Guardian of the Fourth Estate.]
Statutory Law is passed in parliament by democratically elected representatives.
Maori Customary Law, while based on myth and legend, was extinguished by the Treaty of Waitangi when Maori ceded Sovereignty to the Crown and is in violation of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.
Not only are radical Maori being accorded rights which elevate them above “the Rest” of New Zealand, they are via the Courts, attempting to appropriate not only Crown assets but also private property (which hits you the reader right in “the pocket”).
This Latest Court decisions suggest that the ultimate law maker in NZ, is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.
The problem with the outcome is: New Zealand’s democratically elected parliament is the ultimate law maker AND it cannot bind successor parliaments – which means that successors are also the ultimate law maker in New Zealand during their time in the Hallowed Halls.
So, how did we get to the situation where Courts are making the laws of New Zealand?
For the uninitiated, there are two sorts of laws in New Zealand: Statutory Law – made by democratically elected parliament and – collateral law being interpretations of statutory law by the Courts which is called Common Law.
Common Law lasts as long as Parliament decides that Court interpretations of Parliament i.e., Statutory law, is out of kilter. Then Parliament makes new Statutory laws.
In, To Hold a Pen is to be a War, (3) I lauded the few (former colleagues) who have demonstrated the acuity to identify and courage to challenge dangerous developments in our country which (in my assessment), largely emanated from speculative commentary by former Chief Justice Sian Elias (for whom I have no respect) aka spouse of Hugh Fletcher, about the sanctity of Maori Customary Law.
In my opinion, her expression of personal opinion (or perhaps it was obiter) led to what appeared to me to be a clash with Prime Minster Rt Hon Helen Clark who demonstrated that in New Zealand, Parliament is the ultimate authority when her Labour government in 2004 passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act which deemed the title to be held by the Crown.
Helen Clark’s stand against false Maori interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi, put in place legislation passed by democratically elected representatives.
In, Mandarins Rule – Politicians Play the Fool, (4) I address the distorted delivery of power to bureaucrats - manifest at this time in Auckland where democratically elected people’s choice Mayor Wayne Brown, appears to been in danger of emasculation by faceless career bureaucrats. (5)
These are dangerous days in New Zealand - when Bureaucrats over-rule Democratically Elected Representatives.
However, sometimes it’s not just the unelected bureaucrats who inject their venom into the application of parliament’s laws. And so, it came to pass when in 2010, former Prime Minister Rt Hon Sir John Key and his Attorney General Chris Finlayson, repealed Helen Clark’s protection for New Zealand from “wreckers and haters” (6) among Maori and others.
So, how do we fix this disease lurking in the Bowels of the Behemoth?
ACT’s David Seymour, as I assess his contributions to this debate, has consistently voiced opposition to policies which propose measures for shared decision-making with Māori, saying it undermines the concepts of universal human rights and democracy.
ACT’s Mr Seymour reaffirms that:
‘The right response obviously is not to interfere with judges or the judiciary, it is for Parliament to legislate what we believe the correct answer is.’
On this point, I concur. As I penned above, ultimately parliament may expunge Common Law by introducing new Statutory law.
However, Mr Seymour seems to me to lose the plot a little when he says:
‘A referendum on co-governance would be a bottom-line in any coalition negotiation’. (7)
Lost the plot? Yes.
We have elections where democratically elected representatives are selected to make decisions in parliament on our behalf. Long ago, inventors of democracy understood that its not possible for everyone to rock up to a parliament, engage in debates and vote on every issue.
Rule by Referendum is unrealistic.
ACT’s bottom line to forming a coalition, seems to be predicated on the success Mr Seymour had with the euthanasia bill – a private members bill processed under a completely different environment to being the Government running a country,
The National Party, with Mr Luxon and Nicola Willis currently presiding, by my assessment of their past announcements on whether National will repeal Labour’s racially divisive separatist agenda for apartheid, has persistently prevaricated, obfuscated and avoided addressing this issue which portend potential latent if not manifest civil war.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon in March said he did not see the need for a referendum on co-governance, and rejected such a move. (8)
Perhaps the Arab Proverb is true?
“No matter how long the night, the dawn will surely come?”
Maybe my trending preference over recent months for ACT as to where I spend my next vote has been founded not so much on Mr Seymour’s political acumen but on him being the only alternative to National?
Does the fundamental flaw in ACT’s strategy of, Rule by Referendum, bode well for Rt Hon Winston Peters?
Past failures to honour promises and the fact Jacinda came to power because NZ First put her into the Prime’ Minister’s suite, nullify this alternative for me.
This leaves the door open – in my view, for a New Party with a core philosophy of:
(a) protection of private property (which seems to have vanished from National’s basic tenants and
(b) equality before the law for all, irrespective of race, creed, colour, religion or beliefs
PS (a) Is the pillar upon which our economy is built i.e., where the unsung heroes of New Zealand risks mortgaging their homes to raise capital to start a business which employs others who then pay tax to fund government services.
(b) Is the answer to every separatist policy invented by Labour: from separate justice and health systems to tax payer funded transfers of $1.4 billion pa to Maori business; undemocratically appointed local council representatives - I could go on but would exceed my word limit.
Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament; formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies & V.I.P. security; currently Honorary Consul for an African state, Trustee and CEO of Russian owned commercial assets in New Zealand and has international business interest.