This placed ACT's Treaty Principles Bill front and centre and understandably it was the topic of many conversations. In parallel the select committee process began in Wellington.
Some may see the Treaty Principles Bill as a bit of a distraction or a niche issue, and that we have more fundamental economic issues that we need to focus on here in 2025 rather than worrying about who meant what back in 1840. Personally, I think the Bill is relevant to the here and now and, more importantly, what sort of country we will be in 2040.
Firstly, some fact checking. The Bill does not seek to rewrite the Treaty. It seeks to define the principles that were said to exist in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act but were never actually defined by Parliament. Those principles have since been decided by the courts but never by New Zealand's elected representatives. One of the principles that seems to have crept its way into our lives over the last 40 years is that of the Treaty being a partnership between two races, which has led to the push for co-governance.
There were many overt examples of this in the previous government, but the area that has given me the most concern has been at regional level, where many if not all regional councils have decided that to hold firm to this idea of partnership, this means that effectively when it comes to resource consents that every consent needs sign-off from local mana whenua.
Sixteen years ago, when my consent for discharge of effluent to land was granted, it was a fairly straightforward process. I knew from the council the land I needed to apply it over and the amount of storage required, which could be influenced by the application depth that my spreader was able to achieve. I also knew the separation distance that I had to achieve from waterways, public roads, and the boundary. I had to consult with any neighbours that might be affected, and if they did have an issue, the council could take that into account or decide that they felt I was being reasonable enough and issue the consent. Council arrived at these points that I needed to address in my consent through consultation with the community including iwi.
All in all, I had confidence that by investing in the required storage and equipment I would be granted a consent. I also had confidence at that time about my ability to farm for the next 20 years.
Fast forward 16 years, and I hear from many farmers who are lacking in confidence about whether they can get a consent because now it is no longer a clear process through council.
I have heard from vegetable growers who have been told they won't be given a consent for water takes. But also, we have situations where only very short consents are being granted. This current interpretation of the Treaty as a "partnership" creates a situation where confidence is a lot lower than what I experienced 16 years ago, and if you think that doesn't have an impact on the economy, you are dreaming.
We could address these issues through RMA changes, but my concern will be that phrase "must give effect to the principles of the Treaty" is so ingrained in the courts and the bureaucracy, will those changes be able to occur?
The ultimate protection is to do what should have been done 50 years ago and define what the Treaty principles are. Let's have the debate.
ACT has put forward principles that respect the past but more importantly safeguard our democracy going forward. Most importantly, every citizen would have equal rights.....The full article is published HERE
ACT MP Andrew Hoggard is the Minister for Biosecurity and Food Safety and the Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills) and for the Environment.
Firstly, some fact checking. The Bill does not seek to rewrite the Treaty. It seeks to define the principles that were said to exist in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act but were never actually defined by Parliament. Those principles have since been decided by the courts but never by New Zealand's elected representatives. One of the principles that seems to have crept its way into our lives over the last 40 years is that of the Treaty being a partnership between two races, which has led to the push for co-governance.
There were many overt examples of this in the previous government, but the area that has given me the most concern has been at regional level, where many if not all regional councils have decided that to hold firm to this idea of partnership, this means that effectively when it comes to resource consents that every consent needs sign-off from local mana whenua.
Sixteen years ago, when my consent for discharge of effluent to land was granted, it was a fairly straightforward process. I knew from the council the land I needed to apply it over and the amount of storage required, which could be influenced by the application depth that my spreader was able to achieve. I also knew the separation distance that I had to achieve from waterways, public roads, and the boundary. I had to consult with any neighbours that might be affected, and if they did have an issue, the council could take that into account or decide that they felt I was being reasonable enough and issue the consent. Council arrived at these points that I needed to address in my consent through consultation with the community including iwi.
All in all, I had confidence that by investing in the required storage and equipment I would be granted a consent. I also had confidence at that time about my ability to farm for the next 20 years.
Fast forward 16 years, and I hear from many farmers who are lacking in confidence about whether they can get a consent because now it is no longer a clear process through council.
I have heard from vegetable growers who have been told they won't be given a consent for water takes. But also, we have situations where only very short consents are being granted. This current interpretation of the Treaty as a "partnership" creates a situation where confidence is a lot lower than what I experienced 16 years ago, and if you think that doesn't have an impact on the economy, you are dreaming.
We could address these issues through RMA changes, but my concern will be that phrase "must give effect to the principles of the Treaty" is so ingrained in the courts and the bureaucracy, will those changes be able to occur?
The ultimate protection is to do what should have been done 50 years ago and define what the Treaty principles are. Let's have the debate.
ACT has put forward principles that respect the past but more importantly safeguard our democracy going forward. Most importantly, every citizen would have equal rights.....The full article is published HERE
ACT MP Andrew Hoggard is the Minister for Biosecurity and Food Safety and the Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills) and for the Environment.
9 comments:
Māori continue to hold the country to ransom. We had occasion to apply for a resource consent. Part of the process meant writing to a list of iwi, one well over 100kms away, to seek their permission to go ahead. Not one of the nine, or so, responded. Just another layer of bureaucracy for no benefit to anyone. The 1975 Treaty Settlement Act opened a can of worms. Luxon needs to show his mettle and back David Seymour’s bill, or at the very least, let the populace know he doesn’t support co-governance and an apartheid NZ.
Most New Zealanders agree we need to have a referendum on the Treaty Principles. Andrew, you are in a position to fight for this, we are not. I totally agree that unless the democracy issues are sorted the economic progress will have little impact on ordinary New Zealanders. To follow on, if tribalism and co-governance prevail, then powers of veto can be used. Also, as we know in other countries, once a group of people take power who believe they have superior rights to their fellow citizens, then those people take the spoils. Always. This is imperative now that a very firm stand is taken within the coalition. The alternative is a much diminished country with those who have the skills and intelligence leaving for greener pastures.
Voters ensured that the a National led coalition would govern however voters were deceived by the "Luxon-isation" of the Coalition. For PM Luxon to make publically his personal dislike of the Treaty Principles Bill (TPB) is his opinion . However to state that democracy and a TPB referendum will not be allowed under his watch is sedition under wraps of his personal opinion. Similarly the Marine and Coastal bill (MACA) that has been delayed by MP Goldsmith is potentially going to deny all NZers our nations seabed and foreshore. Similarly the Paris Accord is hanging around our necks like a gallows rope with the pitiful excuse of trade issues . We should and would gain more by stopping the media political abuse of President Trump, negotiate our favourable healthy food exports to USA and providing reconnisance upgrade for the southern ocean to Antarctica by NZ in a nod of practical support to USA.
One can certainly see the logic behind things like water takes. Local iwi deny water. Land is now worth nothing. Iwi buy land for cents in the dollar. Water rights are issued. Iwi sell land with rights.
What is not to like.
Astonishing really that we are still pontificating about Treaty ‘Principles’. A capable Govt would have completely eliminated any reference to them 12 months ago. Ah well, 3rd world here we come, ready or not.
Can you not see there are no principles to define.?
To try and do so will cause major problems in the future.
The NZF solution is the only way.
Andrew, we absolutely need to sort this Treaty centricity nonsense that is crippling our country's productivity and rapidly turning it into an ethnostate, where one ancestry claiming cohort enjoys special privileges over all others. On TV1 News Monday night there was a brief story about Maori owned assets in 2023 being worth $126Billion. Let that sink in. That's around $141,000 for every man, woman, and child Maori identifying individual, quite apart from their own personal wealth. And yet we continue to pander to this cohort of the community with special grants and assistance available to very few if any others and, in many instances, also provide them with a 'charitable status' tax exemption. This can not continue and it's destined to fail. We must be all equal in the eyes of the law, or we are truly done for as a democratic country.
Anon@12.57 - Regrettably the principles are now far too embedded in our legislation. NZF will never succeed in addressing all their inclusions and all that will happen is the Treaty Gravy Train will continue at pace, especially now that there are thousands of claims reputedly (ex Tama Potaka) waiting in the wings. We need this to be addressed much more urgently and comprehensively than NZF is proposing and currently accomplishing (not). You need to wake up and smell the (unpleasant) roses. The TPB is by far the best option so far proposed.
This is completely logical, however it needs to be done in such a way as to prevent reversion by Liebour et al in a future Govt - as that will surely come. Also, as it stands, the current NZF solution does not appear to be aiming to remove the reference to the nebulous, non-existent "principles" from the '75 ToW Act itself!
Post a Comment