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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.