Labour leader Chris Hipkins has told RNZ’s Morning Report the Labour Party will not support the Māori Party’s outrageous call for the establishment of a parliamentary commissioner for the Treaty of Waitangi with the extraordinary power to veto parliamentary decisions.
His position is stated in this account of his response to an RNZ question: Would Labour support Te Pāti Māori’s proposal for a Te Tiriti commissioner?
The report says:
The report says:
Hipkins said he does not agree with Te Pāti Māori’s call for the creation of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Te Tiriti: “Not in the way they’ve defined it” – despite Te Pāti Māori indicating it could be crucial for them in forming any future coalition deals.
If it is defined some other way – this suggests – he would find it more acceptable.
“The Labour Party wouldn’t support a parliamentary commissioner with a veto that would allow them to overturn rules made, or laws made by the parliament,” Hipkins said.
“I don’t think that we should be creating a body that has a veto right that can overturn laws created by the Parliament. Parliament has stopped short, for example, of allowing the Supreme Court of New Zealand to overturn laws – so no-one else can overturn a law that’s passed by the New Zealand parliament – I don’t think we should be creating a commissioner that could do that. But we’re open to how we can make sure that there are better checks and balances within our constitutional framework.”
But Hipkins doesn’t have the safest pair of hands when it comes to constitutional niceties.
He supported the legislation which undermines local body democracy by enabling Ngai Tahu to appoint two representatives to the Canterbury Regional Council and he voted at its first reading for the bill which would have created an undemocratic voting system for the Rotorua Lakes Council but which failed the Bill of Rights test.
And remember when he admitted Labour made a “mistake” with the entrenchment clause in its Three Waters legislation.
The Leader of the House announced the government would fix the Water Services Entities Bill this week by removing the entrenchment clause that was voted on during committee stages.
The provision in Three Waters legislation would make it more difficult to privatise water assets.
Hipkins said it was a “mistake” to put the clause in.
The Greens had put forward an amendment suggesting a 60 per cent majority of Parliament’s MPs be required to make an amendment, he said.
“At that point, Labour should have withdrawn its support. We didn’t.”
ACT leader David Seymour said the removal of the entrenchment was “a win for democracy” but “the Government’s intentions remain concerning.”
But let’s hear out Hipkins on the Maori Party’s constitutionally egregious proposal:
“I also think the Māori Party need to think carefully about whether creating a parliamentary commissioner for the treaty would actually undermine the Waitangi Tribunal, who are being severely undermined by this government, and actually have a pretty proud track record of upholding the Treaty – so I think there’s a lot of things that we actually need to think about there.
“Ultimately we’re not going to support a veto over decisions by the democratically elected government, and we’re not going to support them in this context – we’re not going to support them in David Seymour’s Regulatory Standards Bill context – we see those as very similar issues – the regulations, the rules, created by a democratically elected government could be overturned based on private property rights – I don’t think that would be a correct path for the parliament to take either.”
Uh, oh. Hipkins brings his judgement into question when he expresses his opposition to a Bill that has not yet been drafted.
And then there’s our memory of him being branded…
‘Flippy Chippy Flop’
In coming out this week with yet another new position on tax reform, Hipkins has been characterised on social media as “Flippy Chippy Flop”. His various U-turns on tax don’t come across as authentic, but instead as opportunistic. This is a huge problem for Labour. Tax debates only continue to grow in importance, especially with the new Government promising their own tax reform.
Hipkins’ readiness to change his mind was raised also in this article on the Maxim Institute website:
Chris Hipkins has been Prime Minister for only two months. In that time, he has already undertaken two policy “bonfires.”
Our politicians are elected to lead us and not merely to be a mirror of the aggregate of the electorate’s inconsistent, poorly-informed views.
Back in February, Hipkins scrapped the proposed merger of RNZ and TVNZ, pushed the compulsory income insurance scheme off at least until the election, withdrew the religious hate speech legislation, passed the issue to the Law Commission, and ditched the biofuels mandate.
The second policy pyre was lit last week when the Prime Minister announced the Government would not introduce legislation for lowering the voting age to 16 for general elections, scrapped the clean car upgrade scheme and social leasing car scheme, and focussed public transport improvements on the five major population centres.
So what will Hipkins do if the count of votes after the next general election gives him the opportunity to become Prime Minister again, but only with the support – among other coalition partners – of the Maori Party? And an all-powerful Treaty of Waitangi Commissioner is the price to be paid for securing the Maori Party’s support?
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
If it is defined some other way – this suggests – he would find it more acceptable.
“The Labour Party wouldn’t support a parliamentary commissioner with a veto that would allow them to overturn rules made, or laws made by the parliament,” Hipkins said.
“I don’t think that we should be creating a body that has a veto right that can overturn laws created by the Parliament. Parliament has stopped short, for example, of allowing the Supreme Court of New Zealand to overturn laws – so no-one else can overturn a law that’s passed by the New Zealand parliament – I don’t think we should be creating a commissioner that could do that. But we’re open to how we can make sure that there are better checks and balances within our constitutional framework.”
But Hipkins doesn’t have the safest pair of hands when it comes to constitutional niceties.
He supported the legislation which undermines local body democracy by enabling Ngai Tahu to appoint two representatives to the Canterbury Regional Council and he voted at its first reading for the bill which would have created an undemocratic voting system for the Rotorua Lakes Council but which failed the Bill of Rights test.
And remember when he admitted Labour made a “mistake” with the entrenchment clause in its Three Waters legislation.
The Leader of the House announced the government would fix the Water Services Entities Bill this week by removing the entrenchment clause that was voted on during committee stages.
The provision in Three Waters legislation would make it more difficult to privatise water assets.
Hipkins said it was a “mistake” to put the clause in.
The Greens had put forward an amendment suggesting a 60 per cent majority of Parliament’s MPs be required to make an amendment, he said.
“At that point, Labour should have withdrawn its support. We didn’t.”
ACT leader David Seymour said the removal of the entrenchment was “a win for democracy” but “the Government’s intentions remain concerning.”
But let’s hear out Hipkins on the Maori Party’s constitutionally egregious proposal:
“I also think the Māori Party need to think carefully about whether creating a parliamentary commissioner for the treaty would actually undermine the Waitangi Tribunal, who are being severely undermined by this government, and actually have a pretty proud track record of upholding the Treaty – so I think there’s a lot of things that we actually need to think about there.
“Ultimately we’re not going to support a veto over decisions by the democratically elected government, and we’re not going to support them in this context – we’re not going to support them in David Seymour’s Regulatory Standards Bill context – we see those as very similar issues – the regulations, the rules, created by a democratically elected government could be overturned based on private property rights – I don’t think that would be a correct path for the parliament to take either.”
Uh, oh. Hipkins brings his judgement into question when he expresses his opposition to a Bill that has not yet been drafted.
And then there’s our memory of him being branded…
‘Flippy Chippy Flop’
In coming out this week with yet another new position on tax reform, Hipkins has been characterised on social media as “Flippy Chippy Flop”. His various U-turns on tax don’t come across as authentic, but instead as opportunistic. This is a huge problem for Labour. Tax debates only continue to grow in importance, especially with the new Government promising their own tax reform.
Hipkins’ readiness to change his mind was raised also in this article on the Maxim Institute website:
Chris Hipkins has been Prime Minister for only two months. In that time, he has already undertaken two policy “bonfires.”
Our politicians are elected to lead us and not merely to be a mirror of the aggregate of the electorate’s inconsistent, poorly-informed views.
Back in February, Hipkins scrapped the proposed merger of RNZ and TVNZ, pushed the compulsory income insurance scheme off at least until the election, withdrew the religious hate speech legislation, passed the issue to the Law Commission, and ditched the biofuels mandate.
The second policy pyre was lit last week when the Prime Minister announced the Government would not introduce legislation for lowering the voting age to 16 for general elections, scrapped the clean car upgrade scheme and social leasing car scheme, and focussed public transport improvements on the five major population centres.
So what will Hipkins do if the count of votes after the next general election gives him the opportunity to become Prime Minister again, but only with the support – among other coalition partners – of the Maori Party? And an all-powerful Treaty of Waitangi Commissioner is the price to be paid for securing the Maori Party’s support?
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
Hipkins doesn't need a Treaty commissioner, or whatever Maori name they decide to call it. Woke judges are essentially performing that role already, as in the Foreshore case. Also, Hipkins will be giving away the country to Maori anyway.
Hipkins has often said that maori did not cede sovereignty. So of course he will end democracy. I hope the aussies don't shut their bordee to kiwis fleeing which they could do.
Who in their right mind would trust Hipkins?
He Puapua, Matike Mai and TPM all call for a separate Maori parliament with a veto
Post a Comment