With respect, she has the argument backwards.
For many New Zealanders, the frustration with National was not that it went too far in challenging the prevailing Treaty narrative, but that it lacked the conviction to see meaningful reform through.
Consider the Treaty Principles Bill. National agreed to support its introduction and first reading as part of the coalition agreement, allowing public submissions and parliamentary scrutiny. Yet when the moment came to support it at its second reading in April 2025, National voted against it.
What message did that send to voters who wanted greater clarity about the Treaty, equal citizenship and the removal of race-based distinctions from public policy?
It suggested National was prepared to entertain reform, but not actually deliver it.
The wider concern is that New Zealand is staring down the barrel of a fundamental constitutional shift towards increasingly separate systems of political authority, Māori-specific institutions and preferential arrangements. Critics see this as a progressive erosion of equal citizenship and democratic accountability.
Consider the Treaty Principles Bill. National agreed to support its introduction and first reading as part of the coalition agreement, allowing public submissions and parliamentary scrutiny. Yet when the moment came to support it at its second reading in April 2025, National voted against it.
What message did that send to voters who wanted greater clarity about the Treaty, equal citizenship and the removal of race-based distinctions from public policy?
It suggested National was prepared to entertain reform, but not actually deliver it.
The wider concern is that New Zealand is staring down the barrel of a fundamental constitutional shift towards increasingly separate systems of political authority, Māori-specific institutions and preferential arrangements. Critics see this as a progressive erosion of equal citizenship and democratic accountability.
This is not fundamentally a left-versus-right issue. It is about who governs New Zealand, where constitutional authority ultimately rests, and whether that authority belongs to a democratically elected Parliament accountable to all New Zealanders, or is that authority progressively transferred to institutions and arrangements that confer separate political authority based on ancestry. At its heart, this is a question of who controls the country's future.
And what is National doing about it?
Having abandoned the Treaty Principles Bill, Luxon's National now faces the prospect of bringing the Opportunity Party (formerly TOP) into a governing arrangement. Opportunity's policies include strengthening the role of Te Tiriti and devolving health and justice services to Māori with greater autonomy. These are significant constitutional transformations, not minor coalition bargaining points.
Luxon's apparent willingness to entertain such an arrangement raises legitimate questions about his own commitment to equal citizenship and the future constitutional direction of New Zealand.
The issues extend well beyond the Treaty Principles Bill: the expanding role of the Waitangi Tribunal, Treaty references in legislation, co-governance arrangements and race-based preferences all deserve serious public and parliamentary scrutiny.
Those are issues about whether all New Zealanders should enjoy the same democratic rights and be treated equally under the law.
Weenink says National may need ten terms to repair the damage caused by its coalition partners. But what about the damage caused by abandoning the expectations of voters who wanted uniting constitutional reform — reform that would bring New Zealanders together as equal citizens under one law, rather than perpetuating separate political and legal arrangements?
National cannot claim to champion equal citizenship while repeatedly retreating from the opportunity to address race-based legislation and governance.
The real question is not whether ACT pushed National too far to the right. It is whether National had the courage to stand behind equality, democracy and one law for all.
For a great many voters, the disappointment was not that National challenged the status quo. It was that, when push came to shove, it backed away.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
And what is National doing about it?
Having abandoned the Treaty Principles Bill, Luxon's National now faces the prospect of bringing the Opportunity Party (formerly TOP) into a governing arrangement. Opportunity's policies include strengthening the role of Te Tiriti and devolving health and justice services to Māori with greater autonomy. These are significant constitutional transformations, not minor coalition bargaining points.
Luxon's apparent willingness to entertain such an arrangement raises legitimate questions about his own commitment to equal citizenship and the future constitutional direction of New Zealand.
The issues extend well beyond the Treaty Principles Bill: the expanding role of the Waitangi Tribunal, Treaty references in legislation, co-governance arrangements and race-based preferences all deserve serious public and parliamentary scrutiny.
Those are issues about whether all New Zealanders should enjoy the same democratic rights and be treated equally under the law.
Weenink says National may need ten terms to repair the damage caused by its coalition partners. But what about the damage caused by abandoning the expectations of voters who wanted uniting constitutional reform — reform that would bring New Zealanders together as equal citizens under one law, rather than perpetuating separate political and legal arrangements?
National cannot claim to champion equal citizenship while repeatedly retreating from the opportunity to address race-based legislation and governance.
The real question is not whether ACT pushed National too far to the right. It is whether National had the courage to stand behind equality, democracy and one law for all.
For a great many voters, the disappointment was not that National challenged the status quo. It was that, when push came to shove, it backed away.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.