ACT have launched a campaign to outline some facts on their Treaty Principles Bill.
They have done this because, like most of these sort of debates, what you start out with by way of an idea very quickly turns into something else, due largely to those who oppose it and start to spread the misinformation.
The Treaty Principles Bill has turned into, if you listen to those who don’t want it, a law to rewrite the Treaty, trash the Treaty, change the Treaty, strip rights away from Māori and so it goes.
The original idea was a referendum. We listen, we debate, we vote.
What is being pointed out in this campaign is that what we started with i.e. the same rights and duties for all New Zealanders, has been over the past few decades twisted into a series of ideas, not to mention laws, that somehow leaves us with a system whereby Māori, because they are Māori, get things non-Māori don’t.
That, in simple terms, is not what was signed up to.
The Māori Health Authority, and its future for example, will be part of a Waitangi Tribunal case.
Firstly, the tribunal has no teeth, and they don't make law.
Secondly, the Māori Health Authority is, comparatively speaking, brand new and is a good example of what ACT argue.
The Treaty wanted all New Zealanders to have equal access to healthcare, and we do. Healthcare does not discriminate on race.
But a Māori Health Authority is a race-based organisation.
The interpretation of the Treaty has become an industry. The simplicity of a 200-year-old document has turned into an exercise in minutiae, with outworkings that may or may not have anything to do with the original intention.
And that is all ACT want to do - debate it, not rewrite it.
You could argue that if this goes nowhere it's a lot of energy for nothing, especially given the state the country is in elsewhere. But as the Curia poll showed, 60% of us broadly like the idea.
I think ACT are onto something.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
The original idea was a referendum. We listen, we debate, we vote.
What is being pointed out in this campaign is that what we started with i.e. the same rights and duties for all New Zealanders, has been over the past few decades twisted into a series of ideas, not to mention laws, that somehow leaves us with a system whereby Māori, because they are Māori, get things non-Māori don’t.
That, in simple terms, is not what was signed up to.
The Māori Health Authority, and its future for example, will be part of a Waitangi Tribunal case.
Firstly, the tribunal has no teeth, and they don't make law.
Secondly, the Māori Health Authority is, comparatively speaking, brand new and is a good example of what ACT argue.
The Treaty wanted all New Zealanders to have equal access to healthcare, and we do. Healthcare does not discriminate on race.
But a Māori Health Authority is a race-based organisation.
The interpretation of the Treaty has become an industry. The simplicity of a 200-year-old document has turned into an exercise in minutiae, with outworkings that may or may not have anything to do with the original intention.
And that is all ACT want to do - debate it, not rewrite it.
You could argue that if this goes nowhere it's a lot of energy for nothing, especially given the state the country is in elsewhere. But as the Curia poll showed, 60% of us broadly like the idea.
I think ACT are onto something.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
As we know from past experiences at all levels of society, when one sees that something can be achieved by protest, then it can be seen that anything can be achieved.
In this case it will lead to other cancellations if the treaty principles bill goes nowhere.
Nothing is more useful to Maori than a scared and compliant non Maori.
When will we ever learn.?
The word you were looking for Mike is APARTHEID.
Sounded out in a confidential manner which avoids the threat of Cancellation, as the election did, the proportion in favour of a review of the reinterprations of the Treaty would be overwhelming. And more so if the msm adopted a nuetral objective approach.
Hard to believe the drama going on and all over something quite sensible by Seymour
We have conflicts in the interpretation
So lets discuss the matter and get into law a clear and final understanding and get rid of the factions and people twisting the matter
Frankly I find it hard to believe that we are still going back to 1840 about things in 2024
If Labour can waste several hundred of millions on ideas going nowhere (think Auckland light rail), I wouldn't mind this government spend some money, an amount significantly less than what Labour wasted, on an important constitutional issue.
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.