The Prime Minister’s statement at his Monday media conference this week was quite staggering.
In response to a question from The Platform’s Sean Plunket, Christopher Luxon said about the Treaty Principles Bill “there isn’t anything I like.”
Read the Bill and then consider Luxon’s statement.
According to his own words the Prime Minister doesn’t like the full power of the Executive Government of New Zealand having the right to govern, or the Parliament of New Zealand having full powers to make laws in the best interests of everyone, in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Furthermore he doesn’t like everyone being equal before the law and everyone being entitled without discrimination to the equal protection of the law and the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
Because you see, those are the actual words lifted from Clause 6 of the Bill.
The other Principle laid out is one giving iwi and hapu the same rights they had under the Treaty of Waitangi at the time they signed it, unless there are different rights prescribed already in a settlement under the Treaty of Waitangi Act.
What’s more there is a specific clause in the Bill which says “Nothing in this Act amends the text of the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
So David Seymour’s Bill which finally legislates to define a vague phrase inserted into badly written law nearly half a century ago is straightforward and easy to understand.
It’s incomprehensible that the Prime Minister says there is nothing about the Bill that he likes.
How can a Prime Minister not believe in the right of the Government to govern and not like every citizen and resident in the country being equal before the law?
The counter factual would be that he thinks other entities can make law and some people have different rights to others.
His attitude is appalling and bordering on, well, treasonous.
During his media conference he went on at length about the “modern MMP environment” and how his National Party had to do a deal with Seymour’s Act Party to get a coalition agreement in place. The deal, as we know, was to support the Bill through First Reading and then to Select Committee but no further, even if Select Committee submissions and public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill.
He talked about the Bill having an “aeration” at the Select Committee but doubled down about why his party won’t support it because it is “divisive” and “we see no need for it.”
“We do not like this bill” he re-iterated.
Asked, again by Plunket, about whether he was confident that New Zealanders are happy with the principles as they stand at the moment, about how they’ve been arrived at and about how they’re applied he gave an answer to make Kamala Harris proud.
“There’re a range of views about the principles. The Treaty of Waitangi has served us incredibly well.”
Plunket went hard again.
“What is it in the Treaty Principles Bill that will stop that in the future?”
Luxon could hardly have been any more evasive.
“It’s a very simplistic interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which has served us incredibly well and to simplify it down to this is a disservice to the Treaty of Waitangi.”
He’s totally confused.
This Bill is not about reinterpreting or re-writing the Treaty. It says so in Clause 9.
It’s about defining Principles which were first mentioned in legislation in 1975 and then in many subsequent enactments.
Who can disagree with the Principles of a government having the right to govern, of iwi and hapu maintaining all their rights as laid out in legislation, and of every New Zealander being equal before the law?
There was more than a hint of what the problem is with the Bill when former MP Hone Harawira appeared on 1 News.
“We will keep marching till we get our sovereignty.”
What does that mean? Does he expect some yet to be determined Maori entity to govern or go-govern the country? Or does he expect two separate nations to emerge and live harmoniously side by side?
Te Pati Maori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said in the same news story “we will be paving our own future.”
Again, what does that mean? Does he want a separate Maori nation inside the current New Zealand landmass?
This is the issue with opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill. It’s full of ill-defined headline phrases but with no specific objections stated apart from the fact that it’s divisive and will cause tension in race relations.
The beauty of Seymour’s Bill is it’s simplicity. Voters like straightforward and uncomplicated law. This Bill could hardly be easier to understand.
Opinion polls suggest the majority of New Zealanders think it’s about time these half-century-old principles were finally defined.
Christopher Luxon hasn’t read the room.
For him to tell the country’s voters that he doesn’t like anything about the Treaty Principles Bill is one of the worst Prime Ministerial derelictions of duty in modern times.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
Furthermore he doesn’t like everyone being equal before the law and everyone being entitled without discrimination to the equal protection of the law and the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
Because you see, those are the actual words lifted from Clause 6 of the Bill.
The other Principle laid out is one giving iwi and hapu the same rights they had under the Treaty of Waitangi at the time they signed it, unless there are different rights prescribed already in a settlement under the Treaty of Waitangi Act.
What’s more there is a specific clause in the Bill which says “Nothing in this Act amends the text of the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
So David Seymour’s Bill which finally legislates to define a vague phrase inserted into badly written law nearly half a century ago is straightforward and easy to understand.
It’s incomprehensible that the Prime Minister says there is nothing about the Bill that he likes.
How can a Prime Minister not believe in the right of the Government to govern and not like every citizen and resident in the country being equal before the law?
The counter factual would be that he thinks other entities can make law and some people have different rights to others.
His attitude is appalling and bordering on, well, treasonous.
During his media conference he went on at length about the “modern MMP environment” and how his National Party had to do a deal with Seymour’s Act Party to get a coalition agreement in place. The deal, as we know, was to support the Bill through First Reading and then to Select Committee but no further, even if Select Committee submissions and public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill.
He talked about the Bill having an “aeration” at the Select Committee but doubled down about why his party won’t support it because it is “divisive” and “we see no need for it.”
“We do not like this bill” he re-iterated.
Asked, again by Plunket, about whether he was confident that New Zealanders are happy with the principles as they stand at the moment, about how they’ve been arrived at and about how they’re applied he gave an answer to make Kamala Harris proud.
“There’re a range of views about the principles. The Treaty of Waitangi has served us incredibly well.”
Plunket went hard again.
“What is it in the Treaty Principles Bill that will stop that in the future?”
Luxon could hardly have been any more evasive.
“It’s a very simplistic interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which has served us incredibly well and to simplify it down to this is a disservice to the Treaty of Waitangi.”
He’s totally confused.
This Bill is not about reinterpreting or re-writing the Treaty. It says so in Clause 9.
It’s about defining Principles which were first mentioned in legislation in 1975 and then in many subsequent enactments.
Who can disagree with the Principles of a government having the right to govern, of iwi and hapu maintaining all their rights as laid out in legislation, and of every New Zealander being equal before the law?
There was more than a hint of what the problem is with the Bill when former MP Hone Harawira appeared on 1 News.
“We will keep marching till we get our sovereignty.”
What does that mean? Does he expect some yet to be determined Maori entity to govern or go-govern the country? Or does he expect two separate nations to emerge and live harmoniously side by side?
Te Pati Maori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said in the same news story “we will be paving our own future.”
Again, what does that mean? Does he want a separate Maori nation inside the current New Zealand landmass?
This is the issue with opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill. It’s full of ill-defined headline phrases but with no specific objections stated apart from the fact that it’s divisive and will cause tension in race relations.
The beauty of Seymour’s Bill is it’s simplicity. Voters like straightforward and uncomplicated law. This Bill could hardly be easier to understand.
Opinion polls suggest the majority of New Zealanders think it’s about time these half-century-old principles were finally defined.
Christopher Luxon hasn’t read the room.
For him to tell the country’s voters that he doesn’t like anything about the Treaty Principles Bill is one of the worst Prime Ministerial derelictions of duty in modern times.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
20 comments:
As you say Peter, his stated position cannot be seen as anything other than treasonous.
Luxon, like so many other "conservative" politicians desperately wants to be liked by people who don't like him and never will. That's why he doesn't support the Bill. The concerns of the majority, most of which are the National Party's natural constituency, don't come into his thinking. He's rather be popular among the radical Maori and the liberal luvvies who attend the same cocktail parties as Luxon.
When Hone Harawira (et al) gets his sovereignty I am presuming that the maori economy will pay for all and everything maori (schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, housing, aircraft, government, maori public services ....it is a VERY long list indeed) and the rest of the otherly governed citizens will keep their cash?
I have my doubts.....
Luxon is either playing a (dangerous) political strategy and has something up his sleeve or he is being ill-advised and therfore remains ignorant of the damage he is causing.
The problem with the Treaty Principles Bill is that it elevates the Treaty to a status it doesn't have. What they should be doing is repealing the Treaty of Waitangi Act itself. If anything was genuinely stolen from Maori then there are plenty of ways of getting redress under the law rather than having to rely on a vague archaic Treaty. When you have vague sources of law you get vague results.
It has to be reiterated loudly and clearly.
On Monday 11 November 2024 being Armistice Day, the New Zealand Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, yielded to mob rule and threw democracy under the bus in favour of such mob rule.
I can only think that Luxo has appointed Ardern as his personal advisor. It sounds like something straight out of her woke playbook.
This is going to be good to watch. A PM who doesn't want us all to be equal and enjoy the same rights. Astounding!!
I await the National poll ratings and preferred PM scores with bated breath.
I agree with anon @9.41am. The ideal would be to remove the Treaty of Waitangi Act but this might be seen as too radical. I've always viewed Seymour's bill as a pragmatic compromise between doing that removal and doing nothing.
It looks like Luxon might be trying hard to engineer his own demise. He has now said he will not read any submissions in support of the Bill. How stupid can you get? You might think this and actually do it, but to publicly state it has to be totally reckless from a political point of view.
Yeah Luxinda likes to be liked...its very obvious. I agree with Anon...repeal the TOW act altogether.
Let the spectacle commence: The NZ PM has objected to citizen equality! After this, there will certainly be a second chapter to the Treaty Principles Bill. Astute strategic moves from ACT and NZF.
- and for me -
If, as Ross has indicated, Luxon refuses to read any submissions in support of the Bill, then he is mimicking a child with its fingers in its ears - either that, or he's becoming more akin to the inanimate roll-on deodorant bottle he appears to emulate? But whatever - as Peter suggests, he has no place being our Prime Minister if that's his position and his nonsensical and irrational attitude will undoubtedly be his rightful undoing.
Time Luxon grew a back bone!
Is he about to be rolled by Simeon Brown, Chris Bishop or Erica Stanford.
In a few seconds Luxon scuppered any chances of him winning the next election, certainly as P.M. and maybe even as an M.P. except maybe as a TPM list M.P.
The outcry to this has been deafening and I'm sure that somewhere in the National hierarchy there are serious discussions on damage limitation. It's a shame , he's had a good start on the economics front, but no party hoping to win an election can keep him.
Time for Luxo to be put on "Special Projects"
The compelling question after the Chris Luxon brain explosion is " Is Mr Luxon suitable or capable as Prime Minister?" Perhaps that should be the Citizens Intitiated Referendum . The parliamentary left supporters would naturally say NO and the remaining responsible citizens would also agree with NO. Job done . Goodbye Chris.
I enter the "fray" and place this before all past commentators, those who will read this article and (hopefully) post a comment expressing their thoughts.
This Website is an interesting place to read printed opines(articles) and the comments that follow.
I refer back the conclusion of the General Election and the establishment of the current Coalition Govt and was intrigued to read under posted articles then - "that Luxon was going to be a one term PM"- these statements based on what he verbally said, which upset many.
Since then, I read posted comments that indicate should a general election occur tomorrow, National will not be going back into Parliament.
Also since the current Govt has been "in power" Maoridom has raised its political head, emboldened by "the victories they have achieved on the about face of "the Govt".
I have an interest in South Africa and if the New Zealand citizen only know what has happened there since the ANC took control of Govt activities and how the "elite" have welded power to the detriment of that Country. I have oft had conversations with South Africans who now reside in NZ, and they quick to say that with the rise of Maoridom demands (which have similarities to what the ANC did) - then this Country is in for some serious issues, and I know of some of these SA families who have already left NZ.
So we now wait and see what the Hikoi will achieve and will Luxon appear on the steps, at Parliament, and speak to them telling them that Seymour's intentions "is dead in the water, nothing to see here, nothing will change, any demand from you will be effectively delivered".
I like what NZF say - that there are no principles to the Treaty - but its time they got off their butts and did something about it.
Luxon is a closet racial separatist.
However, as a political newby he has neither the experience nor the nous to see where his likely support lies.
Add to that National’s prediliction for being a follower rather than a leader (ie. one who follows already established trends instead of leading people there) and it is easy to see where this issue is going.
Luxon (and those providing him strategic advice) think those who back Te Pati Maori demands are the majority and he should follow their lead to stay in power.
But there are several things wrong with that assessment:
1. They are not a majority. Not even close.
2. TPM and their supporters will never vote for Luxon and National, so why consider them?
3. What about National’s support base. Don’t they count? Reading the comments on this and related articles, it seems there are many National Party members who will change their vote and their party membership because of the direction Luxon is taking.
It seems Luxon is destined to find out about his strategic error the hard way.
Meanwhile, just because Seymour’s Bill gets voted down, doesn’t mean the issues he has raised are going away.
What is being talked about now is just the beginning. The principles in the Act Bill are the core principles of democracy itself.
No amount of shouting and whinge-ing about Maori rights can erase that. It is significant that Willie, Tuku, Hone, Rawiri et al have not mentioned, let alone produced the lucid response to the question of how their “movement” regards the principle of equality before the law.
Do they have an answer?
Yes, Juliet, Luxon is going to find out the hard way and he richly deserves it. For all his reputed commercial nouce, he is a fool to believe 'winging it', like his mentor (Key) did, will somehow save the day. The old saying about fooling some of the people, some of the time is a truism and now, five-odd decades later, that time is well up. The majority have well and truly had enough!
Luxon is naive in the extreme. If he hasn’t worked out (or been told clearly by his advisers) that the main reason National is in power is because NZers are sick to death of the Maorification and division by race policies, I hope he is rolled.
Post a Comment