I'm quite aghast reading about your experience. Having two MPs on the Select Committee so ideologically opposed to the Bill and so neglectful of respectful process, makes a mockery of the proceedings doesn't it? I'm remembering viewing some oral submissions about the Conversion Therapy Bill and feeling shocked at the disdainful and dismissive attitudes of the Labour women MPs to the submitters opposed to the Bill. I suppose there will be a different mix of Select Committee MP's throughout the schedule of hearings in which case there might be a hope of some balance. Nevertheless I feel pretty angry that those making submissions in good faith should have to face this level of response and that it's deemed acceptable in the proceedings of our NZ Parliament.
They did give me a courtesy title which was nice. Of course if I were a sitting Judge there is no way I could have engaged in the process at all, so in that respect there was an element of politeness.
I think Mr Waititi could not avoid the temptation of slagging off a pakeha (former) Judge but hey - that tells us more about him than anything else.
Firstly; what a breath of fresh air! Thank you David!
Then next … My first inclination is to refer to these ‘characters’ who opened up with their non questions as … gentlemen. But that’s a mistake; they behave like characters in a soap opera. And they live off our tax payer funding as MPs … Sure; I’m neither naive or silly, just saddened and ashamed that this is the ‘substance’ of our law makers. And that’s the crunch.
The core of my own written submission was this: “Parliament in 1975 created this confusion; only Parliament, as the locus of the sovereign expression of a democratic people, can define what those Principles are.” [see Far North comments y’day] That is why “we have the need for this bill?” (Waititi) And this is why “This is a totally legitimate discussion for Parliament to have.” (Todd)
Our PM must wake up to fact that rhetoric has supplanted reasoned argument and rein in his own troops to fight this idiocy. Otherwise our nation is doomed to tribal fratricide … I’ve seen it once already …
Willie Jackson and Rawiri Waititi were not listening to you, nor had they read your submission.
They are not interested in you or anyone else’s opinions which differ from theirs
Their interest lies only in monitoring the process to ensure that by some miracle the bills fate does not deviate from what the prime minister has publicly stated, that is we are going to “spike” and “kill” it at its second reading.
Sadly improving outcomes for Māori will not progress under the leadership on display in that committee.
I’ve only recently been exposed to the concept of select committees. I expected them to represent an impartial position, or at least more balance across the committee, with members asking unloaded questions with genuine inquiry. Instead what I see is farcical and doesn’t give me any confidence in how our government develops legislation or even governs our country.
I am an a third generation NZ educator and have been involved in the 'Reading Wars 'for at least 50 years.
I found it invaluable to hear Willie Jackson's statistics on Maori crime. This, I believe is a very big issue and I made that the principle reason for putting it into my very brief submission to this debate despite it not really being directly relevant to the Treaty Principles Bill.
Judge Harvey , I was very encouraged by your submission and your stance.
In as many blogs as possible I inform people of the American Educational Dept. Statistic that found two thirds of those who fail to gain proficiency in reading by about year 5 of schooling ,will end up on welfare or in jail. I have heard NZ youth court magistrates refer to this cause , as well.
Willie Jackson' s reference to background cultural issues is in my opinion so wrong because it is the standard sociological explanation for crime. This is always the excuse of our current educational institutions to divert attention away from their Progressive Education ideology. This destructive ideology is what has caused us in NZ to have one the longest tails of underachievement in the developed world and in which Maori are disproportionately represented.
. In 1980 , my husband and I took on the Dept. of Education , in a court case , concerning the teaching of basics in NZ state schools and since the closed court Magistrate had a court room full of petty youth criminals who couldn't read ,we won our case and home schooling was introduced into NZ. Progressive ideology was what we beat.
I am sorry for using your blog for my rant but the likes of Willie Jackson need to be countered in their Marxist rhetoric .
Thanks for your comment. Willie Jackson and Rawirir Waititi must think I am stupid not to have noticed the terrible effects of continued inaction to prevent or reduce the numbers of Maori appearing in our criminal Courts. It is going to take a completely changed mindset, a recognition that change will not take place overnight and most importantly proper education which will increase available opportunities will be a start to solving the problem.
Hi Hilary, I was pleased you referred me to Alwyn Poole's article on Maori
underachievement in todays Press .
While I have great respect for Alwyn and his Charter Schools, I don't put as much emphasis as he does on parenting although I do believe in good parenting as a factor. Nor do I like his belittling 'structured 'learning.
I was involved for about 30 years in helping my mother teach , privately, 1500 remedial reading failures by the structured phonic method while I tutored maths in a similar way, These remedial children came from from the homes of professional parents with exemplary parenting skills in a high decile area in NZ. My mother in her teaching had a close to 100% success rate in having her students pulled up to the correct reading level. Much recent overseas has shown children from deprived backgrounds can achieve as well as those from high SES ( socio-economic status) families by being solely taught explicitly , systematically and cumulatively ie in a structured way. This is also the method of Traditional Education we used to have in NZ when we had a world class education system last century . Now it is the worst in the English speaking world.
Judge Harvey you have to admit this was shooting fish in a barrel! Even my husband, who doesn’t pass compliments lightly, ranks you as one of the most intelligent barristers he’s encountered. The MPs on the SC were way out of their depth. I don’t support this Bill. I think it’s a sideshow. But I come at it as an ex MP and I see it as Act cleverly shoring up their vote. Good luck to them. Nonetheless I love your reasoning. Standing ovation from me in the balcony, Sir.
Thanks Deborah and thanks too to Colin for his very kind observations. I must say I wasn't sure what to expect but what actually happened was right out of left field. I wasn't sure where the "Illustrated Man" was heading (nor I think was he) but as I say he threw me a lifeline.
I support the Bill because I see it as a way forward. The polarisation of society as a result of an unplanned interpretation of the "principles" of the Treaty is going to continue to be divisive and will get worse. Hopefully with some certainty and common purpose (because that underlies the principles expressed in Clause 6) NZ can start to move ahead. At the moment there is no sense of national purpose and until there is things will not get better.
Thanks for your kind remarks. I have a piece planned for a three parter next month on the Regulatory Standards Proposals and a discussion of a subject that was (is?) near to your heart. Stay tuned.
Once upon a time, rhetoric was a classically crafted art form, one of attempting to assemble an array of reasonable and reasoned arguments, via a progressive set of propositions, which (hopefully) led to a probative conclusion.
It has now become an emotive splurge, welling up from some unprincipled cess pit of blind prejudice born of … well; the reasons are many and varied, yet barely open to reasoned examination except on a psychiatrist’s couch perhaps …
You’re very tolerant and patient. An awful experience. You’d expect better from our MPs but having watched a lot of Parliament recently the sole focus of many Maori Party, Green and Labour MPs is Maori separatism. Tangata whenua and the rest of us. There is no common ground.
Thanks David, a valued submission and oral presentation. The more Willie Jackson stamps his foot and claims 'nothing to see here', the more I think we're in need of the conversation.
That is so appalling! Thank you for sharing. I have yet to read or watch your submissions and I infer from your comments that I may not agree with them. However, I would have expected the once-respected Duncan Webb to avoid the logical fallacies you describe. I would have expected the committee members to have read and intellectually processed your submission and to test it.
This is proving a most educational exercise in all the wrong ways.
What I am wondering is how or what impact the whole 6 months of committee hearings will have, and when the bill is finally voted down by National and NZ First, as they have thus far indicated that they will, what will happen then? Do you have any expectations?
I assume that was the plan from the beginning. What is happening now is the promotional phase of the citizen's initiated referendum that will follow, ideally timed to happen alongside the next general election.
I look forward to your remarks on the RSB which I think is an abomination. Why, for example, does it identify 4 aspects of the rule of law when Lord Bingham identifies 8? It is perhaps academic because NZ pays lip service to the rule of law but does not practice it.
Thanks for your note. You and I disagree on the proposals (there is no Bill yet) for a Regulatory Standards Bill. I would not classify it as an “abomination” and I would like to know your reasons behind the use of such a powerful word.
The topic will be discussed in a series of 3 articles. The first sets out what is proposed - the structure if you like. The second looks at the reaction - mostly critical - and comments on that. The third discusses why the reaction is ideological and misrepresents the philosophy underpinning it.
No discussion about the Rule of Law nor Tom Bingham’s criteria. Maybe I will keep that discussion for another time so thanks for raising it.
I wrote about my views on the regulated state and the RSB (the discussion document masquerading as a bill) and posted my essay on 17 January. I put the link in below. I don't know if the link will work or not.
My reasons for using the word abomination are twofold. Firstly, strong language is appropriate for a polemicist. More seriously, my point about truncation of the rule of law made me suspicious. However, I go further than that as I believe that part of proposed section 6 is bad enough but it is the nonsense about carefully reviewing the common law and then certifying that any proposed legislation is necessary is what I find risible.
If it is intended as a mechanism to stop the regulation mill in Wellington churning out nonsense then all well and good. Surveying the law should occupy them for a ten years per proposal. But I know, as everybody else should do, that policy officials will solemnly certify they have considered 800 years of the common law (and equity presumably but it is not clear) and that there is a lacuna and their bill is necessary. Believe that and I have a bridge to sell as the cliché goes.
I must say, Robert, that it is something of a polemic itself. The use of sweeping emotive language and the very stance which seems to have been developed before the reasoning puts it into that category.
The Rule of Law issue may be simplisticly expressed in the proposal - it would be a challenge to define the Rule of Law for a statutory purpose.
However, the reference to the Atlas Network - a sort of by-blow to the main approach- probably expresses where you are coming from most clearly. I have found those unsupported and unsubtantiated references as far as ACT and other are concerned to be unhelpful in the overall argument and I am afraid runs the risk of a categorisation with the likes of Jane Kelsey and Anne Salmond. In saying that I am not suggesting that you are but they have a foot in the Atlas Network allegation camp, so I would be careful about making such sweeping suggestions. It has an effect upon the validity and reliability of the rest of your argument which, I might say, is well expressed.
Still not clear why use "abomination". That word is probably better used to descibe a child of Satan or the thinking that led to Auschwitz than a proposal that seeks to clarify legislation and the legislative process.
I look forward to your commentary whereupon I will comment further. I must say I find Substack a good forum for debate, even if I am accused of being emotive!
I would say, in advance, that if it is difficult to express the nuances of the rule of law in statute then it should not be attempted.
I’ll look into the purported origins of the RSB in some derivative of the Atlas network. I must say that I find the oblique reference to Ayn Rand triggering for a variety of reasons not least her profound misunderstanding of Nietzsche. I wrote an essay about that on Substack recently. You may not like Nietzsche given his style in TSZ at least.
I'm quite aghast reading about your experience. Having two MPs on the Select Committee so ideologically opposed to the Bill and so neglectful of respectful process, makes a mockery of the proceedings doesn't it? I'm remembering viewing some oral submissions about the Conversion Therapy Bill and feeling shocked at the disdainful and dismissive attitudes of the Labour women MPs to the submitters opposed to the Bill. I suppose there will be a different mix of Select Committee MP's throughout the schedule of hearings in which case there might be a hope of some balance. Nevertheless I feel pretty angry that those making submissions in good faith should have to face this level of response and that it's deemed acceptable in the proceedings of our NZ Parliament.
Thanks Sheryl
They did give me a courtesy title which was nice. Of course if I were a sitting Judge there is no way I could have engaged in the process at all, so in that respect there was an element of politeness.
I think Mr Waititi could not avoid the temptation of slagging off a pakeha (former) Judge but hey - that tells us more about him than anything else.
Firstly; what a breath of fresh air! Thank you David!
Then next … My first inclination is to refer to these ‘characters’ who opened up with their non questions as … gentlemen. But that’s a mistake; they behave like characters in a soap opera. And they live off our tax payer funding as MPs … Sure; I’m neither naive or silly, just saddened and ashamed that this is the ‘substance’ of our law makers. And that’s the crunch.
The core of my own written submission was this: “Parliament in 1975 created this confusion; only Parliament, as the locus of the sovereign expression of a democratic people, can define what those Principles are.” [see Far North comments y’day] That is why “we have the need for this bill?” (Waititi) And this is why “This is a totally legitimate discussion for Parliament to have.” (Todd)
Our PM must wake up to fact that rhetoric has supplanted reasoned argument and rein in his own troops to fight this idiocy. Otherwise our nation is doomed to tribal fratricide … I’ve seen it once already …
It's what happens when politicians are driven by a blind ideological agenda rather than facts.
Willie Jackson and Rawiri Waititi were not listening to you, nor had they read your submission.
They are not interested in you or anyone else’s opinions which differ from theirs
Their interest lies only in monitoring the process to ensure that by some miracle the bills fate does not deviate from what the prime minister has publicly stated, that is we are going to “spike” and “kill” it at its second reading.
Sadly improving outcomes for Māori will not progress under the leadership on display in that committee.
I’ve only recently been exposed to the concept of select committees. I expected them to represent an impartial position, or at least more balance across the committee, with members asking unloaded questions with genuine inquiry. Instead what I see is farcical and doesn’t give me any confidence in how our government develops legislation or even governs our country.
I am an a third generation NZ educator and have been involved in the 'Reading Wars 'for at least 50 years.
I found it invaluable to hear Willie Jackson's statistics on Maori crime. This, I believe is a very big issue and I made that the principle reason for putting it into my very brief submission to this debate despite it not really being directly relevant to the Treaty Principles Bill.
Judge Harvey , I was very encouraged by your submission and your stance.
In as many blogs as possible I inform people of the American Educational Dept. Statistic that found two thirds of those who fail to gain proficiency in reading by about year 5 of schooling ,will end up on welfare or in jail. I have heard NZ youth court magistrates refer to this cause , as well.
Willie Jackson' s reference to background cultural issues is in my opinion so wrong because it is the standard sociological explanation for crime. This is always the excuse of our current educational institutions to divert attention away from their Progressive Education ideology. This destructive ideology is what has caused us in NZ to have one the longest tails of underachievement in the developed world and in which Maori are disproportionately represented.
. In 1980 , my husband and I took on the Dept. of Education , in a court case , concerning the teaching of basics in NZ state schools and since the closed court Magistrate had a court room full of petty youth criminals who couldn't read ,we won our case and home schooling was introduced into NZ. Progressive ideology was what we beat.
I am sorry for using your blog for my rant but the likes of Willie Jackson need to be countered in their Marxist rhetoric .
Thanks for your comment. Willie Jackson and Rawirir Waititi must think I am stupid not to have noticed the terrible effects of continued inaction to prevent or reduce the numbers of Maori appearing in our criminal Courts. It is going to take a completely changed mindset, a recognition that change will not take place overnight and most importantly proper education which will increase available opportunities will be a start to solving the problem.
Today's Press, Alwyn Poole has a piece about 'the long tail'.
Hi Hilary, I was pleased you referred me to Alwyn Poole's article on Maori
underachievement in todays Press .
While I have great respect for Alwyn and his Charter Schools, I don't put as much emphasis as he does on parenting although I do believe in good parenting as a factor. Nor do I like his belittling 'structured 'learning.
I was involved for about 30 years in helping my mother teach , privately, 1500 remedial reading failures by the structured phonic method while I tutored maths in a similar way, These remedial children came from from the homes of professional parents with exemplary parenting skills in a high decile area in NZ. My mother in her teaching had a close to 100% success rate in having her students pulled up to the correct reading level. Much recent overseas has shown children from deprived backgrounds can achieve as well as those from high SES ( socio-economic status) families by being solely taught explicitly , systematically and cumulatively ie in a structured way. This is also the method of Traditional Education we used to have in NZ when we had a world class education system last century . Now it is the worst in the English speaking world.
Judge Harvey you have to admit this was shooting fish in a barrel! Even my husband, who doesn’t pass compliments lightly, ranks you as one of the most intelligent barristers he’s encountered. The MPs on the SC were way out of their depth. I don’t support this Bill. I think it’s a sideshow. But I come at it as an ex MP and I see it as Act cleverly shoring up their vote. Good luck to them. Nonetheless I love your reasoning. Standing ovation from me in the balcony, Sir.
Thanks Deborah and thanks too to Colin for his very kind observations. I must say I wasn't sure what to expect but what actually happened was right out of left field. I wasn't sure where the "Illustrated Man" was heading (nor I think was he) but as I say he threw me a lifeline.
I support the Bill because I see it as a way forward. The polarisation of society as a result of an unplanned interpretation of the "principles" of the Treaty is going to continue to be divisive and will get worse. Hopefully with some certainty and common purpose (because that underlies the principles expressed in Clause 6) NZ can start to move ahead. At the moment there is no sense of national purpose and until there is things will not get better.
Thanks for your kind remarks. I have a piece planned for a three parter next month on the Regulatory Standards Proposals and a discussion of a subject that was (is?) near to your heart. Stay tuned.
Curiouser and curiouser …
Once upon a time, rhetoric was a classically crafted art form, one of attempting to assemble an array of reasonable and reasoned arguments, via a progressive set of propositions, which (hopefully) led to a probative conclusion.
It has now become an emotive splurge, welling up from some unprincipled cess pit of blind prejudice born of … well; the reasons are many and varied, yet barely open to reasoned examination except on a psychiatrist’s couch perhaps …
But hey! Silly me; that’s not their game at all … 😣
You’re very tolerant and patient. An awful experience. You’d expect better from our MPs but having watched a lot of Parliament recently the sole focus of many Maori Party, Green and Labour MPs is Maori separatism. Tangata whenua and the rest of us. There is no common ground.
Thanks David, a valued submission and oral presentation. The more Willie Jackson stamps his foot and claims 'nothing to see here', the more I think we're in need of the conversation.
People who have strong logical arguments for believing they are correct, do not act in the way some of these MPs are acting.
Bravo David. You presented a strong, valid and concise set of arguments that none on the committee seemed to want to hear.
The media has widely publicised opposition to the Bill, but not given support for the Bill any coverage. MSM are a powerful part of the problem.
Thanks for your effort David.
That is so appalling! Thank you for sharing. I have yet to read or watch your submissions and I infer from your comments that I may not agree with them. However, I would have expected the once-respected Duncan Webb to avoid the logical fallacies you describe. I would have expected the committee members to have read and intellectually processed your submission and to test it.
This is proving a most educational exercise in all the wrong ways.
What I am wondering is how or what impact the whole 6 months of committee hearings will have, and when the bill is finally voted down by National and NZ First, as they have thus far indicated that they will, what will happen then? Do you have any expectations?
If ACT could get enough signatures they could put the matter to a referendum. It would be non-binding of course.
I assume that was the plan from the beginning. What is happening now is the promotional phase of the citizen's initiated referendum that will follow, ideally timed to happen alongside the next general election.
Harvey is interesting. Love his reference to US and Ed Burke...partnership.
I look forward to your remarks on the RSB which I think is an abomination. Why, for example, does it identify 4 aspects of the rule of law when Lord Bingham identifies 8? It is perhaps academic because NZ pays lip service to the rule of law but does not practice it.
Hi Robert
Thanks for your note. You and I disagree on the proposals (there is no Bill yet) for a Regulatory Standards Bill. I would not classify it as an “abomination” and I would like to know your reasons behind the use of such a powerful word.
The topic will be discussed in a series of 3 articles. The first sets out what is proposed - the structure if you like. The second looks at the reaction - mostly critical - and comments on that. The third discusses why the reaction is ideological and misrepresents the philosophy underpinning it.
No discussion about the Rule of Law nor Tom Bingham’s criteria. Maybe I will keep that discussion for another time so thanks for raising it.
I wrote about my views on the regulated state and the RSB (the discussion document masquerading as a bill) and posted my essay on 17 January. I put the link in below. I don't know if the link will work or not.
My reasons for using the word abomination are twofold. Firstly, strong language is appropriate for a polemicist. More seriously, my point about truncation of the rule of law made me suspicious. However, I go further than that as I believe that part of proposed section 6 is bad enough but it is the nonsense about carefully reviewing the common law and then certifying that any proposed legislation is necessary is what I find risible.
If it is intended as a mechanism to stop the regulation mill in Wellington churning out nonsense then all well and good. Surveying the law should occupy them for a ten years per proposal. But I know, as everybody else should do, that policy officials will solemnly certify they have considered 800 years of the common law (and equity presumably but it is not clear) and that there is a lacuna and their bill is necessary. Believe that and I have a bridge to sell as the cliché goes.
https://walkerrb.substack.com/p/the-illusion-of-safety
Thanks for the reference which I have read.
I must say, Robert, that it is something of a polemic itself. The use of sweeping emotive language and the very stance which seems to have been developed before the reasoning puts it into that category.
The Rule of Law issue may be simplisticly expressed in the proposal - it would be a challenge to define the Rule of Law for a statutory purpose.
However, the reference to the Atlas Network - a sort of by-blow to the main approach- probably expresses where you are coming from most clearly. I have found those unsupported and unsubtantiated references as far as ACT and other are concerned to be unhelpful in the overall argument and I am afraid runs the risk of a categorisation with the likes of Jane Kelsey and Anne Salmond. In saying that I am not suggesting that you are but they have a foot in the Atlas Network allegation camp, so I would be careful about making such sweeping suggestions. It has an effect upon the validity and reliability of the rest of your argument which, I might say, is well expressed.
Still not clear why use "abomination". That word is probably better used to descibe a child of Satan or the thinking that led to Auschwitz than a proposal that seeks to clarify legislation and the legislative process.
I look forward to your commentary whereupon I will comment further. I must say I find Substack a good forum for debate, even if I am accused of being emotive!
I would say, in advance, that if it is difficult to express the nuances of the rule of law in statute then it should not be attempted.
I’ll look into the purported origins of the RSB in some derivative of the Atlas network. I must say that I find the oblique reference to Ayn Rand triggering for a variety of reasons not least her profound misunderstanding of Nietzsche. I wrote an essay about that on Substack recently. You may not like Nietzsche given his style in TSZ at least.