Sunday, October 16, 2022

Ross Meurant: Fundamental Flaw

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.


(1)  ,a%20significant%20miscarriage%20of%20justice







(8)            ibid

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.


Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

It is within the ambit of Parliament in the British system to put a question to the people in the form of a referendum AND promise to act according to the way the referendum goes. I capitalise the 'and' as this is not mandatory. However, if such a promise be made, it ought to be kept.

Ben Waimata said...

Your points for a new party happen to also be among the basic concepts on which the new party Democracy NZ is founded.

DeeM said...

"We have elections where democratically elected representatives are selected to make decisions in parliament on our behalf. "

And we choose those representatives based on the manifesto of policies they propose to enact or repeal, Ross. But not at the last election. Labour have enacted a host of separatist policies straight from their He Puapua paper and failed to advise the electorate of their intentions to do so, or even of the existence of the document.

A referendum on contentious issues give the public some security in the event we get another runaway, extreme ideological crew like our present lot.

Many NZders have lost faith in the parties who are currently in parliament which speaks volumes for the quality of most of our MPs and their lack of honesty and integrity. They appear to represent a chosen minority and care little for everyone else.

Unknown said...

Ross, We need a new Major party. I'm finished with salary-men politicians who promise to deliver what we need (NZ First has begun!), are elected by ideologically lazy citizens (e.g. most recently at local government level - North Shore re-electing Chris Darby and Richard Hills to Auckland Council), and then roll out more of the United Nation's agendas which will destroy NZ. Our politicians, especially, "National", have demonstrated zero ability to listen to nationally-located, hard-working New Zealanders. Nats are lying about repealing 3Waters - they are too gutless to cancel contracts, are philosophically comfortable with co-governance and do NOT respect ratepayers ownership of water assets. Now, Nats are lying to Groundswell leaders who are seeking help to eradicate new taxes. ALL our political parties are trying to solve a UN-created "climate problem" which does not exist! I encourage all your readers to tune into Odysee platform and learn from these excellent video presentations. New Major - Bring back Excellence, Truth, Reward for Effort, Accountability. Shrink National first, then ACT, (take them down to being Minors) and then thrash poorly-performing Labour-led parliament at the 2023 election. Resurrect New Zealand for New Zealanders. P.S. And all those charities which have popped up to help push more UN nonsense on us? Remove their tax free status.

Mudbayripper said...

As much as I admire David Seymour,s stand on pretty much all of these race based policies, l do believe initiating a referendum on the idea of co governance is a complete oxymoron. Democracy surely is not up for debate.
We either have Democracy or we don't, it can't be simpler.
Its all we have.

DeeM said...


I completely take your point and in a sensible country with a responsible balanced MSM this would not be necessary.
But we no longer live in a country like that.
3 of the five parties in parliament openly support the He Puapua form of co-governance, including our current government.
National also support some form of "partnership" and co-governance but are deliberately vague on how this will happen. That's mana from heaven for activists.
Luxon et al will fold every time.

That leaves one minority party openly opposed. We will very likely end up with some form of co-governance UNLESS the people get the right to vote on it directly.
I'm sure this would result in an overwhelming rejection. That would put the issue to bed, at least for a while, and give any government the mandate to overturn all the damaging racist legislation and indoctrination currently going on.

It's a dire situation when you have to ask your population whether they want democracy or separatist, apartheid rule but that's where NZ is today.