The only room Luxon reads is that of the media, and he runs scared of any negative response from them, unwilling to stamp his foot and call them out, like Seymour did to Jenny-May Clarkson in a recent TVNZ Breakfast interview.
In spite of reading a myriad of opinion and explanatory pieces from both sides I STILL can't grasp what it is that TPM etc are so upset about the bill. I guess that makes me an old, white colonist in spite of my Maori heritage and whakapapa.
I think that they have not read the Bill nor have they thought about it. Thus they argue from a position of ignorance and have to resort to the politics of performance. As I said to Graeme Edgeler (who I might add is better at this stuff than I am) the principles in the Bill can be reconciled with the "common law" principles that have been articulated by the Courts and if I can find time (the next week is Uber busy) I will write on it.
The question I have on the Treaty Principles bill is: why these are framed as principles of the Treaty, and not as more general Constitutional Principles? Why do we want to limit recognition of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Equal Protection to the interpretation of legislation that invokes Treaty Principles? Do we not want recognition of equal protection in other contexts? Do we want people to be able to argue "Parliament has clearly asserted its supremacy only in Treaty contexts, but chose not to do so in contexts where the Treaty is not relevant, so the question of wider Parliamentary supremacy remains open to the Courts."?
Graeme - I make this point when I say that the principles (or at least 1 and 3 of the Bill) would be recognizable by Locke, Jefferson and Mill. But I agree with your proposition and would suggest that as an aid to interpretation it actually managesw to encapsulate the existing principles (if they can be called that) I was thinking about it as I mowed the lawns this morning and may write on how they may be reconciled.
I think the answer to "why these are framed as principles of the Treaty, and not as more general Constitutional Principles?" is that Principles 1 and 3, in essence although there might be slight wording differences, are already general constitutional principles (the latter also enshrined by the rule of law) but the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have chosen to interpret "principles of the Treaty" in ways which flout the general principles. Section 7 implements the s 3 purpose and is the important provision. Because Parliament in 1975 invented the idea that there are "principles", and successive governments have promoted legislation requiring obedience to them in varying ways, without ever saying what they are, the Bill seeks to fill the statutory lacunae without directly disturbing the constitution. The Bill's narrow focus is underscored by ss 8 and 9.
Principle 2 does not reflect a constitutional principle but is a recognition that in Article 2 of the Treaty the Crown undertook obligations of a nature which the Crown (now Parliament which is the body where sovereignty resides) is honour-bound to uphold. "[S]ubclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975," is a recognition that Parliament is sovereign and may legislate for rights which differ from the rights of everyone if required because there has been a breach of Article 2 of the Treaty. This is confirmed by s 8 (remembering that the Tribunal only makes recommendations and settlements are implemented by legislation).
The reason (at least many of) the protestors reject the Treaty Principles Bill is that they support the idea of a binational state, in which Māori and Pākehā have separate governments (and, presumably, laws), consulting with each other when needed. This is taken to be the implication of the claim that Māori did not cede sovereignty in 1840. I thought the Bill was intended to counter this view, but the second principle now lacks clarity. One could argue (and the Waitangi Tribunal surely will) that iwi and hapu enjoyed the right to govern themselves in 1840 and that this should be recognized by the Crown, who should restrict their role to governing "settlers". If the second principle allows for this interpretation, the Bill should be welcomed by the protestors.
I would be surprised if any of them read the Bill in the first place, but were motivtated in their performative politics by agitprop from Te Pati Maori and the Left.
You're surely right. Of course, even if it were true that the rangatira did not "cede sovereignty" in 1840, it does not follow that the Crown does not have sovereignty today. (Jock Brookfield wrote an excellent book on this.) But the idea has spread abroad that the Crown has, since 1840, been acting "ultra vires" (as Helmut Modlik said recently in an interview with David Seymour). It would have been good if the Bill had said (as ACT's original draft said) that "the government has the right to govern for all New Zealanders".
They did cede sovereignty and the evidence is loud and clear on that. The Waitangi Tribunal has rewritten history to reflect what might have been but wasn't.
Jock lectured me in Land Law and was a lovely person
Tell me, when the principles were written into the Act in 1975, but not defined, were there protests? Genuine question as I was struggling with family then & don’t remember.
I agree. See my post "Reconciling the Principles". I think a large number on the hikoi were going along for the ride. But it was a well planned and well executed event.
It might not be such a bad thing for the to come into law and NZ media outlet news aggregation to become a thing of the past. With a free VPN I can redirect my internet connection to another country without such media protection with likely outcomes being less exposure to left wing bias on matters of national importance and more exposure to international affairs putting what is happening locally in much more balanced context.
I wonder what the political/voter trends here would evolve like if our media outlets’ biased views weren’t being served up (and echo chambered through social media algorithms) willy nilly to hundreds of thousands of voters (and teenagers) via news aggregation?
It could be argued (convincingly I think) that lobbying by the media for the FDNBB is a classic example of shooting oneself in the foot not just given the risk of news aggregation being shit down here, driving less traffic to the outlets’ websites, but as a result of the double whammy: a much reduced impact on voters’ political view formation by the left leaning press.
I’m almost in favour of the FDNBB now - roll the dice and let them lie where they fall.
X tells me today the head of content at TVNZ, Nevak Rogers, is herself on the hikoi, which might explain the extensive cover there.
I tend to be a 'big picture' gal...nobody is going to tell me I'm a 'settler' citizen or that a NZ govt should treat me any differently that any other cit. I'm not a fan of Act;s bill but I'm unafraid of it & cannot fathom the current unintelligible fuss from TpM & its fellow travellers. As Seymour & others have said, show me the successful modern state where racial carve-outs are a thing.
Interesting about Nevak Rogers - no kickback from Te TVNZ unlike the NZME journo whom I mentioned in "Speak and Be Not Silent" who was advised not to attend the FSU event last Saturday.
'Advised'...imagine that...a journo thinks twice about hearing a visiting academic from Oxford & decides to kowtow to their employer. Nobody would believe you from 10 yrs ago.
The only room Luxon reads is that of the media, and he runs scared of any negative response from them, unwilling to stamp his foot and call them out, like Seymour did to Jenny-May Clarkson in a recent TVNZ Breakfast interview.
Pity that Luxon doesn't call out the media. Seymour did well with Clarkson - a pity others do not do likewise.
In spite of reading a myriad of opinion and explanatory pieces from both sides I STILL can't grasp what it is that TPM etc are so upset about the bill. I guess that makes me an old, white colonist in spite of my Maori heritage and whakapapa.
I think that they have not read the Bill nor have they thought about it. Thus they argue from a position of ignorance and have to resort to the politics of performance. As I said to Graeme Edgeler (who I might add is better at this stuff than I am) the principles in the Bill can be reconciled with the "common law" principles that have been articulated by the Courts and if I can find time (the next week is Uber busy) I will write on it.
The question I have on the Treaty Principles bill is: why these are framed as principles of the Treaty, and not as more general Constitutional Principles? Why do we want to limit recognition of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Equal Protection to the interpretation of legislation that invokes Treaty Principles? Do we not want recognition of equal protection in other contexts? Do we want people to be able to argue "Parliament has clearly asserted its supremacy only in Treaty contexts, but chose not to do so in contexts where the Treaty is not relevant, so the question of wider Parliamentary supremacy remains open to the Courts."?
Graeme - I make this point when I say that the principles (or at least 1 and 3 of the Bill) would be recognizable by Locke, Jefferson and Mill. But I agree with your proposition and would suggest that as an aid to interpretation it actually managesw to encapsulate the existing principles (if they can be called that) I was thinking about it as I mowed the lawns this morning and may write on how they may be reconciled.
I think the answer to "why these are framed as principles of the Treaty, and not as more general Constitutional Principles?" is that Principles 1 and 3, in essence although there might be slight wording differences, are already general constitutional principles (the latter also enshrined by the rule of law) but the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have chosen to interpret "principles of the Treaty" in ways which flout the general principles. Section 7 implements the s 3 purpose and is the important provision. Because Parliament in 1975 invented the idea that there are "principles", and successive governments have promoted legislation requiring obedience to them in varying ways, without ever saying what they are, the Bill seeks to fill the statutory lacunae without directly disturbing the constitution. The Bill's narrow focus is underscored by ss 8 and 9.
Principle 2 does not reflect a constitutional principle but is a recognition that in Article 2 of the Treaty the Crown undertook obligations of a nature which the Crown (now Parliament which is the body where sovereignty resides) is honour-bound to uphold. "[S]ubclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975," is a recognition that Parliament is sovereign and may legislate for rights which differ from the rights of everyone if required because there has been a breach of Article 2 of the Treaty. This is confirmed by s 8 (remembering that the Tribunal only makes recommendations and settlements are implemented by legislation).
Thank you David, you have summarised very clearly what reasonable Kiwis think about the Hikoi and the Bill.
The reason (at least many of) the protestors reject the Treaty Principles Bill is that they support the idea of a binational state, in which Māori and Pākehā have separate governments (and, presumably, laws), consulting with each other when needed. This is taken to be the implication of the claim that Māori did not cede sovereignty in 1840. I thought the Bill was intended to counter this view, but the second principle now lacks clarity. One could argue (and the Waitangi Tribunal surely will) that iwi and hapu enjoyed the right to govern themselves in 1840 and that this should be recognized by the Crown, who should restrict their role to governing "settlers". If the second principle allows for this interpretation, the Bill should be welcomed by the protestors.
Thanks for your comment.
I would be surprised if any of them read the Bill in the first place, but were motivtated in their performative politics by agitprop from Te Pati Maori and the Left.
You're surely right. Of course, even if it were true that the rangatira did not "cede sovereignty" in 1840, it does not follow that the Crown does not have sovereignty today. (Jock Brookfield wrote an excellent book on this.) But the idea has spread abroad that the Crown has, since 1840, been acting "ultra vires" (as Helmut Modlik said recently in an interview with David Seymour). It would have been good if the Bill had said (as ACT's original draft said) that "the government has the right to govern for all New Zealanders".
They did cede sovereignty and the evidence is loud and clear on that. The Waitangi Tribunal has rewritten history to reflect what might have been but wasn't.
Jock lectured me in Land Law and was a lovely person
Tell me, when the principles were written into the Act in 1975, but not defined, were there protests? Genuine question as I was struggling with family then & don’t remember.
The focus was on setting up the Tribunal to redress grievances and the business of principles took a back seat.
I strongly suspect most of the protesters and even the media have not actually read the bill nor have any idea of what it's trying to achieve.
I agree. See my post "Reconciling the Principles". I think a large number on the hikoi were going along for the ride. But it was a well planned and well executed event.
It might not be such a bad thing for the to come into law and NZ media outlet news aggregation to become a thing of the past. With a free VPN I can redirect my internet connection to another country without such media protection with likely outcomes being less exposure to left wing bias on matters of national importance and more exposure to international affairs putting what is happening locally in much more balanced context.
I wonder what the political/voter trends here would evolve like if our media outlets’ biased views weren’t being served up (and echo chambered through social media algorithms) willy nilly to hundreds of thousands of voters (and teenagers) via news aggregation?
It could be argued (convincingly I think) that lobbying by the media for the FDNBB is a classic example of shooting oneself in the foot not just given the risk of news aggregation being shit down here, driving less traffic to the outlets’ websites, but as a result of the double whammy: a much reduced impact on voters’ political view formation by the left leaning press.
I’m almost in favour of the FDNBB now - roll the dice and let them lie where they fall.
Great piece thanks.
Your recs re the link tax bill are good one.
X tells me today the head of content at TVNZ, Nevak Rogers, is herself on the hikoi, which might explain the extensive cover there.
I tend to be a 'big picture' gal...nobody is going to tell me I'm a 'settler' citizen or that a NZ govt should treat me any differently that any other cit. I'm not a fan of Act;s bill but I'm unafraid of it & cannot fathom the current unintelligible fuss from TpM & its fellow travellers. As Seymour & others have said, show me the successful modern state where racial carve-outs are a thing.
Interesting about Nevak Rogers - no kickback from Te TVNZ unlike the NZME journo whom I mentioned in "Speak and Be Not Silent" who was advised not to attend the FSU event last Saturday.
Thanks for your comment
'Advised'...imagine that...a journo thinks twice about hearing a visiting academic from Oxford & decides to kowtow to their employer. Nobody would believe you from 10 yrs ago.
You would be even more surprised if you knew who the journo was but my lips are sealed.