One of the reasons for given for stopping the Bill before it started was that Act which is behind it, got such a small proportion of the vote.
That is irrelevant. Act is part of the coalition government, it campaigned on this policy and won the support to take it to a first reading in coalition negotiations.
Besides, a party’s support in an election isn’t necessarily indicative of support, or opposition, to a particular policy.
People vote for, and against parties for a variety of reasons. It would be next to impossible to find someone who supported every policy a party puts forward and people who vote for one party almost certainly support at least some policies which other parties promote.
There may well be people who voted for Act who don’t like this policy and polling shows that people who voted for other parties, including those on the left, do like it.
As it is, the Bill isn’t exactly what was in the campaign policy.
Cabinet has agreed these principles should be in the Bill:
People vote for, and against parties for a variety of reasons. It would be next to impossible to find someone who supported every policy a party puts forward and people who vote for one party almost certainly support at least some policies which other parties promote.
There may well be people who voted for Act who don’t like this policy and polling shows that people who voted for other parties, including those on the left, do like it.
As it is, the Bill isn’t exactly what was in the campaign policy.
Cabinet has agreed these principles should be in the Bill:
- Civil Government: The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
- Rights of Hapū and Iwi Māori: The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreement with the Crown.
- Right to Equality: Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.
. . . the version in the actual bill does steer much closer to the text of the treaty, and can be argued to be a good faith interpretation (but not the only one).
This is part of a larger question about the principles of the Treaty and how they are defined and interpreted. It is clear that these have changed over time from Sir Apirina Ngata to David Lange to the Court of Appeal to today’s prevailing interpretation. I think it would be good to have certainty, and the question then is who should decide the principles. Should it be:
- The judiciary
- The Waitangi Tribunal
- Parliament
- The people via referendum
- The people or Parliament via an entrenched constitution
Those are very good questions, all of which ought to be open to debate and discussion but another reason given by many for stopping the Bill before it started was the prospect of social division.
Why do these people fear debate, especially when the chances of the Bill getting beyond its first reading are too small to measure?
There are already differences of opinion over the Treaty, its principles and its place in our laws and lives.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
Why do these people fear debate, especially when the chances of the Bill getting beyond its first reading are too small to measure?
There are already differences of opinion over the Treaty, its principles and its place in our laws and lives.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
12 comments:
Referendum ASAP - essential to re-confirm equality and democracy. Long overdue.
Without this, NZ is " finished".
“Having small proportion of the vote” is such a lame excuse! Then why we all put up with the antics of the TPM since they have even less support? The protest come from those whose profits will be affected by the lack of preferential treatment
The activist courts would have a field day if that becomes law. Article II looks like a moveable feast open to wide interpretation.
The public can still have a Citizens Initiated Referendum and the wording can leave out the shown Rights of Hapu and Iwi Maori in article 2 . The rights of Kiwi not Iwi would seem reasonable to include
Rob is right. The wording is definitely too loose in 2. The Waitangi Tribunal and the courts will reinterpret ad nauseam, legal fraternity and elites salivating at the trough. Article 1 also - “best interests of everyone” means vastly different things to different people. Will the wording improve during select committee process?
Very true, Ele,
Personally, the revised second principle has potential future legal argument written all over it, which is precisely why we needed these definitions in the first place - to put an end to this incessant nonsense and division.
But let's bring on the discussion. Once the public are more aware of the issues, and if we don't like were it's taking us, then Basil has suggested an appropriate solution. We have the power!
The answer to "Why fear debate" is that they expect to lose. They dismiss democracy as tyranny of the majority, and conveniently overlook the Bill of Rights which protects minority interests.
Yeh not happy with the new #2. Isn't this exactly what we were trying to avoid?? What were you thinking David???? The bill had my support and now it doesn't because #2 goes and separates us again and just watch how that will be reinterpreted over and over again.
In 1840 hapu and iwi meant small groups with very local interests but now spread far and wide and in numbers much larger than a village/pa. Just as many despite tenuous connection claim mana whenua status and comresponding right to interfere far and wide, hapu and iwi will under the wording, try the same. In effect a recognised nation wide counter movement wll be created, even worse than the present situation.
Treaty principles are regularly quoted as being acted against.
I wonder how this can be as principles are not defined anywhere or by anybody.
Using the term "Treaty Principles" as a defence or attack must be a nullity as principles do not exist outside the mind of those who would benefit from the terms use.
A survey of the entire NZ population would have the potential to provide millions of "Treaty Principles".
With regard to the proposed bill, any mention of special treatment for one ethnicity completely negates the original intent of the bill.
Principle 2 of the proposal does just that.
This fiasco has been simmering for one hundred and eighty years.
Given the progress made in that time, it's unlikely things will be any better a hundred years from now.
Only some future event will result in the demise of the treaty and complete unification of the population.
It would be interesting to know who insisted that clause 2 was put in. Maybe there needs to be a big "people power" effort to let Luxon know what is expected of this coalition, via a flood of submissions at the committee stage and letters to all members of the cabinet.
People power must be brought to bear and take the nonsense out of the second clause - we cannot have animal farm where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
Post a Comment