An extraordinary exchange took place on The Platform Radio Station between host Sean Plunket and Deputy PM Winston Peters, who said there's no such thing as Treaty Principles. However, Labour and Greens not only believe there are Principles, but they form part of the "constitutional framework of this nation", to quote MP Willie Jackson. As for NZ's legal profession, it has entered the political fray, in the form of the Kings Counsels, siding with Labour.
ACT also believes there are Principles, but they've been confusingly concocted by politically activist judges, so must be clarified by legislation. Is someone missing from this list? The Prime Minister. Platform host Plunket told his audience that since becoming PM, Luxon has declined to be interviewed by him. That's like Trump turning down Fox News, since The Platform is right-wing. Most incredibly, Plunket said he had no idea whether the PM accepted that Treaty Principles exist, or not, let alone their status in NZ law.
Since Main Stream Media journos can't do interviews anymore - they shout at our leaders and want to tell us how to think - lets ask our own questions to the PM.
Since Main Stream Media journos can't do interviews anymore - they shout at our leaders and want to tell us how to think - lets ask our own questions to the PM.
First: "Deputy PM Peters says there's no such thing as Treaty Principles. Your next Deputy PM Seymour says there are Principles but they need to be clarified in legislation. Labour and Kings Counsels also say there are Principles & they like the existing ones. What's your position?"
Second: "If you do believe there are Principles, what's their legal status? Are they part of NZ's constitutional framework, as asserted by Labour & Kings Counsel? If so, are they enshrined & settled to the extent they cannot now be altered by Parliament?"
If our PM is not able to address the nation in this time of economic & political crisis, and answer these questions, then he's consigning NZ to uncertainty, division, acrimony and stagnation, since this is no side issue. For the sake of Kiwis of all ethnicities, can the PM tell us where we stand before the law?
If our PM is not able to address the nation in this time of economic & political crisis, and answer these questions, then he's consigning NZ to uncertainty, division, acrimony and stagnation, since this is no side issue. For the sake of Kiwis of all ethnicities, can the PM tell us where we stand before the law?
The status of the Principles, which our legal profession says include "equitable outcomes", will determine whether NZ becomes poor, but where people are equally poor, or prosperous, but where some prosper more than others. Some folks prefer the former; others the latter. Who's to judge?
We're just asking the PM to tell us which road NZ is going down, so we can decide whether to leave, depending on our own preferences. I suspect we already know what he will say: "I'm not sure. The answers are being developed - they've been developing over these past 180 years and will continue to be developed" ~~ That answer will sink the country.
Sources:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20241114_20241114_40
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
Sources:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20241114_20241114_40
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
17 comments:
Winston asked Helen Clark in the house ‘what are the principles of the TOW?
She could not give an answer.
Cookes ‘akin to principles ‘ has split the country and needs to be quashed.
There are no principles in the treaty.
Early elections depending on the public response to the TP Bill?
Firstly, if "The Platform is right-wing" then I must be a bit to the right of Genghis Khan. Truth is that the Platform is one of the most unbiased and balanced media outfits in New Zealand. Another truth is that we in the centre will always lean to the right to counter what we see as a crazy tilt to the left - aka our msm and what Liebour did to us during its last tenure. Yet another truth is that asking our PM to exercise REAL leadership is a pointless exercise.
theyre building the plane as they fly it - and the builders are debating if it needs wings
The PM lead? He would struggle to lead a dog on a leash!
Principles & partnership - two make believe things one cohort have absolutely dined out on. Enough's ENOUGH!
I think the PM might be under Mr Potaka's thumb on this issue. If that is correct and the PM cannot get out from underneath it, he may need to consider his own future.
Exactly who and where is the silent majority that wants Luxon to alter the current course of NZ?I suspect they are a figment of the imagination of people who blog here and who are needed to justify their views. Seems to me the so called silent majority are quite happy just to go with the flow. They send their kids to school and university, they watch TV and read their news feeds and just get on with life. No protests, no disruptions, no opposition. They are happy.
so lets have the referendum then who knows those you describe may even develop an informed opinion and learn to value our hard won democracy.Like those who comment here. What's the harm in thinking critically?
Anon.11.53am. Who were the silent majority who voted for Trump? I bet you have an opinion on that as well.
MC
In 6 months, public reaction to the ACT TP Bill will prove your view to be right or wrong. Where the 83% of NZers stand on their fast-approaching status as second class citizens will be clear.
Ross, Funny that thumb analogy being used for PM Luxon.
If you were to ask PM Luxon a question that he does not like he would simply turn around and walk away. He dodges controversy. He isn't really responsible for any of this, it's none of his doing, and he's not the one controlling the situation, he is simply the the thumb puppet that he is. Give him a question he can answer and he'll be gushing. Some describe him as bald Jacinda, I don't know about that, but, it's the same game but with different tactics though. We're on this course and it's been written. There's a lot of Helen Clark in all this.
Good idea!
In reading the posted comments, I am reminded of posted comments that appeared under "specific articles, on this website, that mentioned" - the PM and the ones I recall more so are the ones that stated - "Luxon is a one term PM".
Now the question I would put before you = "IF Luxon is a one term PM, based on what has occurred with ACT's Treaty Principles Bill", can that be applied to Keir Starmer - PM/Labour UK and the current issue with his Chancellor of the Exchequer -Racheal Reeves and the Budget that is seeking to make claim to any Inheritance money thru taxes"?
How many New Zealander's are aware of this?
My tongue in cheek thought - is New Zealander's are more concerned with the All Blacks, the English are on the verge of a "potential civil riot".
So - Who is taking more interest in their Country?
Anon 2.52, no opinion just an observation. Is that a big deal? But as for Trump the people that voted for him probably mostly thought he would give them the best chance to feed their kids and have a roof over their heads. In other words, what most people want. Is that unreasonable?
Whether one agrees or not too bad - unless you were a US voter you had no choice to make. It was a domestic US election and under their rules Trump won.
My observation of NZ is people are feeding their kids and have a roof over their heads
and that is their ongoing concern. From top down there is no real groundswell of opinion or action challenging and leading the steady incremental but radical social, cultural and political changes that are happening - indeed these changes are constantly validated and reinforced, whether you like the media or not and are being entrenched in several generations of NZers now. History doesn't matter after all the voices of the dead are quiet now and it is the loudest voices of the living in today's world that count. There is no real leader to create the counter groundswell. Seymour may have put a view out there but Luxon has made it clear it is doomed so why make an effort to believe in Seymour's bill let alone support it. Luxon has stated his position and his political colleagues are not challenging it - not aware of any threats of a leadership coup in support of a groundswell counter view.
So whether you like it or not NZ has changed forever, a new ethos is being accepted and accommodated and becoming established and respected.
I leave the value judgements up to you.
PS for my part I have made choices not to be part of the new New Zealand. You can form your own opinion as to whether that is wise or a cop out.
To Anon at 5.34 You have left already? Or gone into hibernation in ex-Godzone?
200.000 have signed the petition to hold new elections - after 100.000, a petition is usually discussed in Parliament.
Taxes would be killing if the 3 Opposition parties get any were near govt. = wealth redistribution on steroids.
NZ: action can continue even if the ACT Bill stops after the SC. e.g. citizens' referendum or ACT could force a new election. Seymour can use the public reaction in support of the Bill to advantage. He knows a tipping point has been reached - that is why he pushed for the Bill in some form.
The ordinary Kiwi may take some time to realize that paying for an ethnocracy and being a 2nd class citizen is very costly. This will happen but by then, too late - so repent at leisure and much poorer.
Post a Comment