Left-wing blogger Martyn Bradbury, activist and artist Tame Iti, historian Anne Salmond and lawyers Stephen Franks, Andrew Geddes and Andrew Judd are among the chosen ones.
Along with some former members of Parliament (whose party links would have stood in their favour).
Outfits like the Professional Historians’ Association of New Zealand Aotearoa, the New Zealand History Teachers’ Association and the New Zealand Law Society Te Kahui Ture o Aotearoa are there too.
And the National Iwi Chairs Forum (imagine the fuss if they had not made the cut!).
Oh – and for some curious reason the list includes the Coalition for the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Canada). Perhaps they might help explain the application of the word “indigenous” to people who got to New Zealand just a few hundred years or so before the Europeans (who are labelled “colonisers”).
They are on the list which RNZ has published in a report that says:
The Justice Committee has named 367 people to present oral submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill, with a further 112 spots reserved for randomly selected submitters.
In a statement on Friday, the committee said the list of names has been nominated by each political party, and it has sought to take a balanced approach.
The names include many iwi and hapū groupings, unions, lawyers, and a range of individuals including well known and lesser-known people.
Ex-politicians including former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley and former Finance Minister Ruth Richardson are included.
More names will be selected to fill gaps if others cancelled their appearance, could not be contacted, or were unable to be scheduled due to limited availability.
A list of 479 people is on the large side, when you think about the workload for the committee which must listen to them.
But it’s a little list – minute, actually – when you consider the number of submissions totalled more than 300,000.
The committee says it has published the list to inform the public about its work, “and to give clarity to submitters who have contacted the committee asking if they will be invited to make an oral submission”.
It says:
We appreciate that some submitters will be disappointed not to have the opportunity to speak to the committee. The committee has sought to take a balanced approach to its hearings by allowing each political party to influence how the 80 hours of hearing time is used.
If you have not been selected to be invited, we thank you for your understanding and for taking the time to make a written submission.
The list of submitters for each hearing will be published on the Submitters List page on the Parliament website in the days leading up to hearings.
Live-streamed official coverage of the hearings will be available on the Parliament website here.
On-demand official coverage is made available within one to two days of the hearing and can be found on the committee’s Vimeo page here.
On Monday, 10 February, the committee intends to publish the submissions of those submitters who have been invited to make oral submissions.
The list is arranged in alphabetical order. The order that submitters will be scheduled and heard will depend on their availability and the practical arrangement of hearings.
The committee heard from some of the named submitters yesterday over more than four hours.
The next sitting is for two hours next Thursday 13 February.
Were you among the many who must have missed out?
And where can we find a list of discards, rejects and also-rans?
The full list of those who have been chosen to have their say is at the end of the RNZ report HERE.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Outfits like the Professional Historians’ Association of New Zealand Aotearoa, the New Zealand History Teachers’ Association and the New Zealand Law Society Te Kahui Ture o Aotearoa are there too.
And the National Iwi Chairs Forum (imagine the fuss if they had not made the cut!).
Oh – and for some curious reason the list includes the Coalition for the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Canada). Perhaps they might help explain the application of the word “indigenous” to people who got to New Zealand just a few hundred years or so before the Europeans (who are labelled “colonisers”).
They are on the list which RNZ has published in a report that says:
The Justice Committee has named 367 people to present oral submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill, with a further 112 spots reserved for randomly selected submitters.
In a statement on Friday, the committee said the list of names has been nominated by each political party, and it has sought to take a balanced approach.
The names include many iwi and hapū groupings, unions, lawyers, and a range of individuals including well known and lesser-known people.
Ex-politicians including former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley and former Finance Minister Ruth Richardson are included.
More names will be selected to fill gaps if others cancelled their appearance, could not be contacted, or were unable to be scheduled due to limited availability.
A list of 479 people is on the large side, when you think about the workload for the committee which must listen to them.
But it’s a little list – minute, actually – when you consider the number of submissions totalled more than 300,000.
The committee says it has published the list to inform the public about its work, “and to give clarity to submitters who have contacted the committee asking if they will be invited to make an oral submission”.
It says:
We appreciate that some submitters will be disappointed not to have the opportunity to speak to the committee. The committee has sought to take a balanced approach to its hearings by allowing each political party to influence how the 80 hours of hearing time is used.
If you have not been selected to be invited, we thank you for your understanding and for taking the time to make a written submission.
The list of submitters for each hearing will be published on the Submitters List page on the Parliament website in the days leading up to hearings.
Live-streamed official coverage of the hearings will be available on the Parliament website here.
On-demand official coverage is made available within one to two days of the hearing and can be found on the committee’s Vimeo page here.
On Monday, 10 February, the committee intends to publish the submissions of those submitters who have been invited to make oral submissions.
The list is arranged in alphabetical order. The order that submitters will be scheduled and heard will depend on their availability and the practical arrangement of hearings.
The committee heard from some of the named submitters yesterday over more than four hours.
The next sitting is for two hours next Thursday 13 February.
Were you among the many who must have missed out?
And where can we find a list of discards, rejects and also-rans?
The full list of those who have been chosen to have their say is at the end of the RNZ report HERE.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
11 comments:
A little list of treason, a little list infamy and despicables, a little list to be referred to at a later date down the road when things are not going so great.
Of the 367 named speakers I counted 164 (plus or minus) with obvious Maori connections. That's 45%. I have seen published that NZ is home to more that 160 ethnic groups. In the present day, the Treaty of Waitangi applies to and affects all of those groups, and each of those groups should have their say, at least in a democracy. Why did a group supporting Canadian indigenous peoples receive a speakers slot when Maori are, by their own admission, not indigenous bit sailed here from overseas, kisy like that great navigator, Captain Cook ? That slot could have been given to one of our ethnic groupings that have a stake in New Zealand, not Canada.
And, of course, on top of the 45% you can add those of the far left that only wish to defeat ACT as a means of attempting to destroy the Coalition -- hungry for power.
Do you not think that the decisions made by those regarding who can and who cannot speak, is extremely lopsided. And is one able to conjure up any reason other than that this was deliberate ? Is this democracy in New Zealand ? A really sad state of affairs.
I'm disappointed with the prominence of well-known people (on either side). This was a chance to give a lot of opportunity to ordinary citizens. I'd prefer a system which featured a limited quorum of experts, a limited number of organisations, and the rest being people who don't ordinarily have outlets for their views. I can imagine what Martyn Bradbury and Stephen Franks will say, and their comments are likely to be diametrically opposed - but I can access their views elsewhere very easily.
This selection looks to me to be stacked. I am also wondering where organizations such as the Law Society gets its opinions from, as those opinions don't represent the views of their members.
Writing as one of the stupid morons who in spite of the fact there are no principles in the blessed treaty is in support of the Bill simply because it espouses the principles of good governance, I think that the outcome of this select committee will be most telling for NZ. We know that Luxon will bludgeon the bill into the waste bin regardless of the select committee recommendations - democracy? Bah what a joke!
This is a key issue: authenticity of the opinion. [
You notice many main city councils will speak. For Auckland, this was voted by 11 of 20 councillors. For the actual submission text, no citizens were consulted, no one knows what the submission will be. Hence, the submission has no validity.
And this action might be his very own Waterloo.
A little off subject but I read that Luxon uses 'X' formally Twitter to communicate to his subjects. I feel this to be entirely appropriate was fairly appropriate as he will be an 'X' prime minister after the next election!
I for one think Winston Peter's lack of support for this Bill will be the death knell of his party. Why doesn't he support it ? Is it simply because he didn't propose the Bill in the fIrst place ? Or is it that he sees himself as some sort of modern day Machiavelli ? He was supposed to be the champion of grass roots democracy. Perhaps he can rescue his parties fate by demanding of Luxon that the bill be allowed to go to a referendum binding on the Government. Perhaps a few of the spineless toadies in Luxons caucus could grow a little spine and demand the same ! Clearly neither Luxon nor Peters can read the room these days.
No matter how much anger Maoridom threatened over the reversal of 3 waters, the Maori health system or unelected local body seats what did they do when this all eventuated ? Nothing ! And that's exactly what they'd do were the Treaty Principles Bill passed into Law. Exactly nothing !
Many like myself did not vote 1tick National 1 tick ACT
last time to see overwhelming public support for a Bill like this ignored. I know many who voted like me last time intending to vote 2 ticks ACT next time
.Here we go again, National engineering a repeat of 2017, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Lets hope it's Prime Minister Seymour next time ,and not the The Ethno-Socialist Peoples Republic of Aotearoa !
Here we go again, National engineering a repeat of 2017, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
To Anonymous 4.29. Both Peters and Jones live in the far north. Winston at least enjoys outdoor pursuits. With so many hakaing maori nutters per square mile, outdoor life woud be very hazrdous if everyday maori perceive him as opposing what they are indoctrinated to believe is their interests. Thus, near all trace maori politicians are especailly constrained in what they dare say and do. This is on top of the 5th column risk all also present.
I can't agree with you at all Mr Arthur. Since both Peters and Jones have been instrumental in the end of 3 waters, the Maori Health system and Maori Electorates, are both working towards reference to Maoridom being removed much of our legislation and reigning in the Waitangi Tribunal why on earth would they be concerned about northland maori nutters now over Mr Seymours Bill ?
Post a Comment