While I don’t think a referendum is the right way to address the issue of defining the principles, I do think that they ought to be defined and find nothing alarming in the definition the Bill proposes:
Principle 1
The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,—
(a) in the best interests of everyone; and
(b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Principle 2
(1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.
(2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Principle 3
(1) Everyone is equal before the law.
(2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—
(a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and
(b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
How something as democratic as that can be divisive is beyond me and that the Bill is divisive is no reason not to support it.
Divisive means there are at least two sides to the issue already and killing the Bill dead without an alternative will not be then end of it for those who seek something a lot more clearly defined than what we have now.
Ill-defined and undefined law is bad law and the principles while placed in many laws and also in practices by central and local governments, their offshoots and other organisations are not defined.
Moves to define the principles will not go away when the Bill is killed.
If the government doesn’t do something to define the principles then, as is already happening, courts will continue to put their own interpretation on them.
National must come up with an alternative, and one that satisfies not just both of its coalition partners but also the public.
Failure to do so won’t just be a failure of leadership, it will be handing Act, and possibly New Zealand First a lot of support at the next election.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
12 comments:
Principle 2- The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.
The Crown will have to define exactly what “rights” hapu and Iwi Maori had at the time of signing that they didn’t give up to become British Subjects?
At the time of signing, New Zealand was under the dependency of New South Wales, as sovereignty had been officially claimed by Britain six months earlier.
So, what rights?
Luxon has lost me on this. The aim of the Bill is to give clarification and a sound and accepted agreement as to what the position is in todays terms. We must stop the redefining of the intent whenever it is before some Court or tribunal. Luxon will not support it and is quoted today " Treaty Principles Bill is a “disservice” to the Treaty and he gets the “immense frustration” among Māori."
I agree a referendum not satisfactory.
The proposed Principle 2 seems to create as many grounds for interpretation and dispute as it tries to solve.
It's quite simple really.
There are no principles in the Treaty.
The invention of principles out of 'akin' has cost NZ dearly and until this idea is quashed we will not progress.
There is an alternative already available, and that's the proposed repeal of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in all current legislation. However that only kicks the can down the road on what that phrase really means so I trust whatever shape the proposed bill takes, it remedies that fundamental flaw in our law..
1st anon...I pointed out the same thing online the other day...what are these "rights" exactly? I got completely blasted by supporters of the bill and not one of them answered my question. These "rights" will take flight just like the "principles" did. The original principles bill was much better.
Perhaps the PM is getting advised from the pillow on the other side of their bed .
Luxon still hasnt defined his full support of ZERO carbon which is mind numbing stupid, wishing us and everything all to stop breathing .
His desire to kill the Principles Bill as it is written is hard to understand , when he knows that NZ First are bringing their own Waitangi Bill to parliament which has far greater consequences than a very reasonable Treaty Principles Bill.
Actually he should resign because he appears to be a corporate coward or professionally dumb or just prefers big noting and photos of holding hands with his wife.
Definitely NOT a leader or someone to respect .
Generally, there two types of people who enter parliament. First, there are those who we hear from all the time, and for all the wrong reasons. Second, there are those who, once there, we never hear from again.
Kevan
We are been dragged into the critical race theory, and the lies are stacking up.
Unfortunately Luxon is not a suitable Prime Minister for these times. His caucus must tell him that he has to change course.
National are reverting to type and are becoming a no risk Govt.
I trusted Luxon for a while to act on the mandate from the election to reestablish democracy. He has failed and seems like he intends to go on trying to ignore this big brown elephant in the room.
He and National have lost my support and vote.
I suspect many NZers feel the same.
The late Maori King is on record as saying "There are no Principles, only the Treaty itself" So why are all these rabble rousers still trying to keep the ill defined courts version of these Principles? Just get rid of all of them, then there won't be a need for Acts Bill
Post a Comment