Hobson’s Pledge representatives Elliott Ikilei and Thomas Newman defended the ACT Party’s Treaty Principles Bill before the Parliamentary Justice Committee, arguing for a single sovereign Parliament and equal laws for all New Zealanders.
Newman, a civil litigator and trustee, upheld Principle One, stating that Parliament “continues to have sovereignty because it is a representative institution with members elected through free and fair elections. Sovereignty is derived from the people who are governed.”
Ikilei criticised Principle Two, which recognises specific rights for Māori under the Treaty, calling it a product of identity politics. He described the debate as a clash between “white guilt on one side and victimhood on the other”—a dynamic he argued is no way to run a country. He warned that leaving Treaty rights undefined would lead to endless legal battles, stating, “This ambiguity will perpetuate conflict and litigation—and it will be taxpayer-funded.”
While supporting Principle Three, Newman objected to the phrase “equal benefit,” arguing it could justify race-based policies like affirmative action, undermining true legal equality. He also rejected identity labels such as Pākehā or European, declaring, “My rights in this place don’t depend on a document signed in 1840.”
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
Ikilei criticised Principle Two, which recognises specific rights for Māori under the Treaty, calling it a product of identity politics. He described the debate as a clash between “white guilt on one side and victimhood on the other”—a dynamic he argued is no way to run a country. He warned that leaving Treaty rights undefined would lead to endless legal battles, stating, “This ambiguity will perpetuate conflict and litigation—and it will be taxpayer-funded.”
While supporting Principle Three, Newman objected to the phrase “equal benefit,” arguing it could justify race-based policies like affirmative action, undermining true legal equality. He also rejected identity labels such as Pākehā or European, declaring, “My rights in this place don’t depend on a document signed in 1840.”
Hear more over on YouTube
The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
There are no Treaty Principles and trying to identify something that does not exist will cause a further raft of legislative arguing.
Anon@10.31, clearly you've been asleep? There might be "no principles", but our politicians have embodied them in many Acts and Pandora's Box has now been well and truly opened. Relying on Winston to close the lid is a fool's errand. We desperately need them defined, or see will continue having the Waitangi Tribunal and our judiciary making them up as they go along.
And despite Winston's claim that there are "no principles" and he will seek to have them removed from legislation, a read of Muriel Newman's latest Newsletter will confirm that they are alive and well and still being introduced into new legislation, just like they were with the recent Fast Track Approvals Act. Despite his remonstrations, Winston's words are worthless - and all the while He Puapua marches on.
First step to reverse this rort is to abolish Maori Electoral seats and roll. Once that is sorted, then we can concentrate on principles and other matters. But while we still have special seats and Electoral rolls, nothing will improve, They are just a platform for the activists now, nothing more. Their original purpose faded when universal suffrage occurred
Post a Comment