It's the big fish that do their best to stay away from the glaring eyes, but try as they might to smudge the glass, they can't avoid the glare.
And that's the case with the debate over the much maligned Treaty Principles Bill, which actually doesn't exist at the moment, something that seems to have been ignored by the Waitangi Tribunal which launched a scathing criticism of it last week.
The Prime Minister was moved to rightly say that the tribunal was getting ahead of itself. But then given his and the National Party's opposition to 'the bill,' saying they won't support it past its first reading - surely that's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
They haven't seen it, and yet they are allowing it to be sent to a Parliamentary select committee for a lengthy hearing of public submissions, and that is a wanton waste of taxpayers' money, given without their support it's destined to fail.
New Zealand First is also opposing the bill, although the wily old fox Winston Peters seemed to be a little equivocal in the debating chamber yesterday when he was standing in for Chris Luxon.
"I think one is entitled to believe, despite all the previous statements, if there was prevailing, compelling evidence to change one's mind - as a famous economist once said - when the facts change, I change my mind," he said.
He doesn't think that'll be the case with ACT's bill, but concluded that sometimes "we do have a faint hope that others might have it right."
Peters has long been a critic of Māori being treated any differently from anyone else.
In fact, in a speech to supporters in Nelson in the lead-up to the election last year, he claimed Māori weren't the indigenous people of this country.
He said they came from the Cook Islands and Rarotonga and if we go back 5000 years, their DNA came from China.
“Every tribe will have in its ancestry where it came from, and it’s not New Zealand,” he said. “Why are we lying to each other? We should be believing in truths and not myths.”
The truth about the upcoming Treaty bill is that never in a thousand years would Winston Peters ever have thought he'd have to share power with David Seymour, let alone agree with anything he said.
Next year, he will have to face the ignominy of having move aside to let Seymour take over his deputy Prime Minister's role.
Seymour's a shrewd operator and his Treaty bill won't be as offensive as many are making it out to be. It will reinforce a democratically elected government has the right to govern and that all New Zealanders have equal rights, although Māori have special rights, like customary title over marine and coastal areas, although not exclusivity.
ACT's polling showing its stance has the support of 60 percent of the country, and the one thing it's got without the bill being introduced to Parliament in November, is widespread debate - which is what Seymour's argued for from the start.
And if support grows, where does that leave the majority in the coalition Government, going against the will of the people?
Perhaps Peters' economist is right - when the facts change, so do minds.
Barry Soper is a New Zealand political journalist, and has been featured regularly on radio and television since the 1970s. Currently, Soper's main role is political editor at Newstalk ZB, a radio network in New Zealand.
13 comments:
One hopes politicians don’t let their egos get in the way of what is best for the country to move forward. It could be argued that customary rights have already created a race based privilege based on nothing more than feeling like a Māori. Enough is enough.
The problem seems to be that Jacinda's extremism, putting Treaty clauses into every possible piece of legislation and making non-Maori second class citizens is now portrayed by the media as being normal and what Maori are entitled to. The previous status quo, of public ownership of the coast, as existed under both Labour and National, is now regarded as theft from Maori.
Define "everyone" Barry?
If this is in the bill as you state, "Māori have special rights, like customary title over marine and coastal areas, although not exclusivity", then I have an issue with it .
The Treaty Principle Bill is yet to be tabled so the dicussion on content is premature as Barry rightly wrote ,
However the possibility of a Citizens Initited Referendum (CIR) only needs 10 % of the eliible voters which at July 2024 was 3,650,000 in total. Therefore needing 365,000 signatures . Divided between 72 electrates in NZ is circa 5,000 signatures.in each electorate . ACTs polling shows 60% support for the bill. I say to each electorate, bring on the CIR without delay and support real democracy .
The problem Seymour will have is getting the message out through a hostile MSM that is prepared to openly lie about the message. And of course, give the most coverage to activists while quoting them as "experts".
And remember when the reporter asked Ardern whay Article 1 of the Treaty said? Reply - blank. Maori were/are being used for the greater 'great reset' that Ardern was trying to drive to impress her insane globalist buddies.
Of course not.. David's bill wants everyone to be treated equally, for democracy to remain, and property rights for all. This is now appoarently a ' hard right" attitude.
The only thing Maori are scared of is being treated the same as everyone else.
Winston has said he will oppose the Bill simply because there is nothing about principles in the Treaty and therefore you cannot clarify something that does not exist. This makes sense.
That's exactly the point, Anon. The racist, Maori activists are actually demanding more of the apartheid system that the Waitangi Tribunal are pushing.
They want special rights based upon ethnicity. It is as simple as that.
Yes !! That's right !! APARTHEID NEW ZEALAND.
Also the fact is that all the "Treaty principles" that the multiple activist revisionists, judges, politicians etc. have dreamed up are quite simply works of fiction.
They are FALSE.
The Treaty of Waitangi has a written text, which is easy to read.
There are no NO "principles" in the words of the Treaty.
NO "partnership" mentioned in the words of the Treaty.
So the entire discussion regarding "principles" is meaningless - because it is based upon a fiction that does not exist !!
Ihcpcoro - yes. I well recall Hosking asking Comrade Ardern about the First Article and the total blank as she had no idea.
It was so indicative of how little she knew, and how out of her depth she was in the real NZ.
But if Hosking had asked her about Marxist theory, she could have spouted that off by heart.
Of course, shortly after too many other "hard" questions from Hosking she refused to appear on his show, and delegated other senior Labour politicians who had been primed with a list of questions.
Oh, the irony of her appearing at the USA Democratic Convention, telling the US how to run a proper government.
Don and Doug you appear to miss the point. While there are no principles in the Treaty pe se, clearly legislation has embedded them in lots of places and even the coalition’s latest effort, the Fast-Track Approvals Bill makes reference to them, in addition to Tikanga & Matauranga, which prior to hadn’t been stated in legislation to my knowledge? But, in any event, you are dreaming if you think they will now go away, or that they will meaningfully be removed out of most legislation.
So, Pandora’s Box has been opened. To date, Seymour’s Bill is the only sensible and likely way of addressing the problem and it will elegantly solve others too in time if you think about it. Hence why there’s so much pushback.
Unfortunately, Anon, you are probably right.
But the fact is that the "principles" are a work of fiction.
They are NOT in the Treaty. They have been dreamed up, invented.
Yes - they might be here to stay too long, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are a falsehood.
Post a Comment