As per the Coalition agreement, NZ First can happily carry on removing all references to the Treaty from our legislation, it is not dependant on ACT's Bill, the two can co-exist.
The rewriting of our statutes to remove this ominous reference can be done easily, they don't have to rewrite the legislation in it's entirety, this can be done progressively.
Some laws are more critical than others , for example the Local Government Act which forces Councils to consult with Mana Whenua, this Act requires immediate attention.
Alongside this, if ACT's bill clarifies the intent (principles) of the Treaty this can only be beneficial and hopefully will ensure that any future legislation is made secure.
Graeme Spencer is a staunch New Zealander who believes in racial equality and one law for all.
Some laws are more critical than others , for example the Local Government Act which forces Councils to consult with Mana Whenua, this Act requires immediate attention.
Alongside this, if ACT's bill clarifies the intent (principles) of the Treaty this can only be beneficial and hopefully will ensure that any future legislation is made secure.
Graeme Spencer is a staunch New Zealander who believes in racial equality and one law for all.
9 comments:
All apartheid Acts and statutes which give explicit recognition to the treaty are not entrenched and can be swept away by a simple majority in parliament.
If the state politicians wanted it done it would be done by lunchtime, but guess what, the state doesn't want it done.
Acts attempt to clarify something that does not exist , will only create more confusion.
There are no principles in the TOW , period.
@Anonymous 1.22pm - true, but perhaps you should listen to David explain why NZ needs the discussion > https://theplatform.kiwi/podcasts/episode/david-seymour-is-the-treaty-principles-bill-dead
The government can quite quikly put through an omnibus act that says that any references to treaty principles in any other act is now null and void. Then give cabinet power to reinstate certain clauses in other acts as it becomes apparent they are needed. Not too difficult I would have thought
I take your point Graeme, but agree with anonymous at 1.22 pm. There should be no reference to treaty principles in our legislation, let alone in an act promulgated by the current government. It’s an absurdity for one coalition member to be removing all such references in our legislation on the grounds that the treaty never created any principles, while another member is introducing a bill with those very words in its title. Were ACT’s bill to become law, what’s to stop woke activist judges from reasoning that since there are principles after all we can reinterpret them? The safest course is surely to steer clear of any reference to treaty principles. NZ First one, ACT nil.
Nice throw away line to say there are no principles - only the treaty itself. BUT how come the Waitangi Tribunal and our activist judiciary can create fictitious “principles” that set precedents anytime they like. Tikanga makes this nonsense even easier to create. Seymour’s Bill, passed into law via referendum, would halt the fictitious principles and make the law harder to overturn by any subsequent government. And yes, there’s no reason why all references to treaty principles in current laws can’t be annulled. Winston and Seymour’s solutions could almost be seen as two sides of the same coin. Bring it all on!
And then labour greens tpm get in and change it all back again. ACT is trying to get it out to the people to have a say so that things are changed on the peoples say. ignoring it wont make it go away and the left will just put it all back
A dilemma does exist. However, the determination to avoid any referendum on the Maori issue is shared equally by National and Labour. For them, this problem does not exist.
NZers know that this problem exists and is increasing - but they are being denied expressing their view in a legally binding vote.
Why is this?
Graeme you're right, but I see there are some deluded commentators amongst us.
Those that voted for one of the coalition parties take note. You might well have thought that doing so will get us "back on track" - meaning both in an economic sense and also away from the nonsensical maorification of everything.
Well, take a look at one the coalition's more recent Bills. The "Fast-Track Approvals" one in which "Treaty" is mention 85 times, principles 11 times, Tikanga 3 and Matauranga once. If anyone thinks for a moment that the coalition are serious about bringing some normality and sensibility to the table, where all NZrs are treated equally - think again.
No, we absolutely need Seymour's Bill to be debated openly, with maximum public exposure and engagement. Whatever the Bill ends up being called, NZrs need to demand a referendum and take this matter out of the hands of the politicians who have not done us all proud. Of the last bunch of PM's, who, if any, have really had our interests at heart?" I'd say, none - certainly including the current incumbent, who is more interested in big-noting it with his A-lister pals and, no doubt, hoping to secure a gong.
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.