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.
BUT WAIT!
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?”
Conclusion.
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.
References:
(3)
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2022/09/ross-meurant-to-hold-pen-is-to-be-at-war.html
(4)
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2022/10/ross-meurant-mandarins-rule-politicians.html
(6)
https://www.nzcpr.com/the-big-lie/
(7)
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/476401/act-launches-anti-co-governance-proposals
(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.
6 comments:
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.
Your points for a new party happen to also be among the basic concepts on which the new party Democracy NZ is founded.
"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.
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. https://odysee.com/@voicesforfreedom:6/LOCAL-BODY-ELECTIONS-ROUND-UP-with-Jaspreet-Tane:b
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.
Mudbayripper
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.
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.