It was voted past first reading but it wont get past round two.
What I learned out of it was several things.
1) This country is not up for much of a debate around complex or big ideas. We are myopic in our approach. We hate and we love and middle ground is irrelevant.
There was a venom and aggressiveness to a lot of submissions.
2) From those who submitted that actually knew what they were talking about, as opposed to merely having an opinion, it very quickly became clear there is massive disagreement over interpretation.
These were scholars and lawyers and historians, in other words, "experts". They couldn’t agree.
That to me was the big clue. If the “learned” can't agree, surely that means we need something, legally speaking, to define what we are dealing with.
There is a major case in Christchurch at the moment between Ngai Tahu and the Crown over water rights.
It is in the court because there is nothing definitive in law as to what the Treaty does, and doesn’t, do.
We seem to accept that Parliament is the ultimate court, yet on the Treaty we appear happy to litigate for decade after decade, have a tribunal that is wildly tainted and nothing like a proper court, and each and every time we dabble in this area you and I are picking up the tab.
The other outworking of course is the ongoing grief and angst.
This is a very divided nation. This is not a harmonious nation with an agreed legal stance around the Treaty.
But putting it out to a vote the way Act wanted was a mistake It's too important for that. Pik N Mix democracy never works.
The other thing I learned politically is it should never have seen the light of day if it wasn’t going all the way.
This goes to the Chris Luxon negotiation skills. It should have been either dead before it started, or it got the full treatment.
What we got was a half-baked, deeply divided mess that ended up achieving nothing.
Even those who argue it started the debate are wrong. Because if it's floated for another day we won't carry on where we left off.
We will have to start all over again.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
There was a venom and aggressiveness to a lot of submissions.
2) From those who submitted that actually knew what they were talking about, as opposed to merely having an opinion, it very quickly became clear there is massive disagreement over interpretation.
These were scholars and lawyers and historians, in other words, "experts". They couldn’t agree.
That to me was the big clue. If the “learned” can't agree, surely that means we need something, legally speaking, to define what we are dealing with.
There is a major case in Christchurch at the moment between Ngai Tahu and the Crown over water rights.
It is in the court because there is nothing definitive in law as to what the Treaty does, and doesn’t, do.
We seem to accept that Parliament is the ultimate court, yet on the Treaty we appear happy to litigate for decade after decade, have a tribunal that is wildly tainted and nothing like a proper court, and each and every time we dabble in this area you and I are picking up the tab.
The other outworking of course is the ongoing grief and angst.
This is a very divided nation. This is not a harmonious nation with an agreed legal stance around the Treaty.
But putting it out to a vote the way Act wanted was a mistake It's too important for that. Pik N Mix democracy never works.
The other thing I learned politically is it should never have seen the light of day if it wasn’t going all the way.
This goes to the Chris Luxon negotiation skills. It should have been either dead before it started, or it got the full treatment.
What we got was a half-baked, deeply divided mess that ended up achieving nothing.
Even those who argue it started the debate are wrong. Because if it's floated for another day we won't carry on where we left off.
We will have to start all over again.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
18 comments:
As this site well knows, the last Labour Government attempted to blow up the constitutional arrangements in the Country and the media were paid off to keep quiet. We know the real direction this Country is going in when there is no debate.
Stating the obvious again:
1.voters know democracy is attacked and establishing an ethno-state is already well advanced
2. in this situation, a PM should arrange a referendum so all NZers can give their view in a legally binding process.
3. Mr Luxon is not doing this. He is insulting NZers. He is not fit for office.
Experts rarely agree on aspects within their fields - that is how progress is made because they then debate these differences and come to conclusion.
The TPB was an opportunity to debate the issues and that opportunity has been snuffed out. A referendum is now needed to fulfill the 'we need something, legally speaking, to define what we are dealing with'....issue.
If the opponents of such a referendum are so confident of winning why are they so opposed to such a referendum.
I also disagree that what 'we got was a half-baked, deeply divided mess that ended up achieving nothing'. It was made into a hot mess by those that did not want to debate it from media, iwi, WT, academics and politicians, but what it did do was actually raise the collective conciousness of New Zealanders about an issue that truely needs to be 'codified' so that the Treaty can be seen as the historic document that it is as we go into the future instead of it being used as a rubber stick that everyone with a vested interest in garnering more money out of it uses to bash the taxpayer with.
New Zealanders now see through the Tribunal and the opposers of the sovereignty of parliament, equality of rights under the law and equal suffrage. To deny these makes you a proponent of tribalised feudalism nothing more or less and the majority of New Zealanders if asked would say no to that.......sadly they did not get the chance yet to be asked that question.
Just need a cohort of the new 'learned' coming out of auckland uni, after they've done their compulsory maori indoctrination course module.
All will be well in the former New Zealand.......
Makes no sense. Apparently the oppose side does so because they are a minority and will lose but 95% of submissions were opposed?? So what are they afraid of? See it through. While we are there lets have a binding vote on co-governance because currently our constitution is being changed without the vote of the people. Utterly sick of this country being run by a party who was not voted in.
Amazing that things looked pretty solid for the first 150 years. Wonder what happened over the last 30.
Mike, after reading your comments on the TP Bill I’m almost inclined to to stop listening to your morning broadcasts. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that all proceedings in the Tribunal are based on a concocted and inaccurate back translation of the Treaty. The original ‘Treaty’ was a very simple document drafted in English and translated almost word for word into the native language current at that time and the chiefs who signed it were fully aware of it’s meaning. Of course armed with the twisted version of the document and aided and abetted by indoctrinated academics, so-called experts and activist judges, not to mention a succession of weak, useless politicians, we’ve ended up where the corrupt, biased Tribunal uses the ‘Treaty’ to decide issues before it almost invariably in favour of the claimants.
No, it wasn't a half-baked divided mess. Previous governments declared there were principles, but never defined them. Although I initially agreed there were no principles, parliament didn't. Therefore my submission was based on the premise that parliament had decreed there were principles. Now that parliament has decreed there are principles, it stands to reason they need to be debated. Who is to debate this? The entire population of New Zealand of course. This bill was shot down because a select few people basically didn't like it. Principle 2 was not agreed to by many , that is no reason to say both left and right wing voters didn't want it sorted.
hipkins mum sowed the change in the education system, to create the types ('numpties')e.g
-a fish'n'chip worker with a 'communications degree' and her dropkicks, oops, I mean sidekicks,
-the whole of the greens
-'grifters' of the intergenerational beneficiaries type, with a smidgeon of special gene
etc etc
The exercise has not been futile. The division within NZ artfully fomented over the last 50 years has been made very clear for all to see. The now immense organised, illogical, violent, totally self interested, intimidating, pervasive political power of maori has been brought very clearly to the attention of the greater public. That 50 million tipped into Insurgency Coordination Centres (marae) and other enterprises (kapahaka support, Matariki etc) hugely assisted maori to communicate with one another and so coordinate the revolution. Hopefully, despite the propoganda domination within education, govt departments, msm, councils etc the general public will not be so easily duped from now on.
Mike, you have been compromised for the last 6 years because your bosses took PIJF money, and thus you have been restrained from asking Luxon, Robertson et al the really hard questions.
I hear you skirting delicately around the obvious hard questions that should be asked in any of your political interviews.
The Treaty issue can never be resolved fairly until the MSM stops actively supporting the left activists, and comes back to neutral middle ground.
In one way I'm pleased that the Bill has been pulled, as a Referendum at the moment would be so skewed by the influence of the media, internal government parasites, churches, unions, academics etc, that the ignorant public could be persuaded to vote for apartheid.
But with the support of the major Right party which was voted in to eradicate this unwanted and seditious action.
A Parliament is a labyrinth of intrigue and dishonesty.
The Select Committee on the Treaty Principles did little other than play a numbers game, which almost anyone could have predicted. Numbers held the floor.
What it failed dismally to do however was to heed the mood of a majority of the nation following the six years of social and racial engineering chaos from 2017-23.
I agree with several others who post to this and other forums, that Mr Luxon has proved himself to be anything but leadership material, so perhaps we need a referendum on his future as well as a public referendum on what you describe as “Pick & Mix”.
As said before, thsi Govt must bring sedition back to the Crimes Act - pronto!
Hasn’t David Seymour done well. The way he communicates and conducts himself is that of a senior statesman. All ministers in his party have a role model in David Seymour. Sadly the same can’t be said about National.
Hosking is so full of himself that he's got it completely wrong about the TPB
No, Mike, it proved how racist some of us are and more, especially, how unfit Luxon is to be our leader. He is, without doubt, the biggest impediment to our country's future success and he needs to be gone.
Sir G Palmer and his cronies are to blame for creating this mess. As a lawyer, he knew exactly what the outcome would be of introducing a bill with undefined 'principles'. Lots of work for his layer buddies. But blame can be placed on subsequent govts for letting it fester for fifty years. David Seymour is the only grown-up in Parliament with his resolve to clear up the inherited mess. All those submissions to Select Committee should have been invalid unless they gave a reason for their submission. Just saying on a template that "I am opposed to this Bill" was not good enough. Most opponents of the bill cannot give a VALID reason for opposing it
Post a Comment