Source: ACT Party
The Haps
The world is about to relearn economics, as Governments erect trade barriers between citizens of their countries and those of other countries. New Zealand cannot change the rest of the world’s trade policies right now, we can only ensure our own house is as competitive as possible. Putting on our own tariffs would be a tax on New Zealanders, we should remain a beacon of free trade for the world. The Government’s latest quarterly plan, filled with ACT initiatives, will keep the reform pressure on.
Treaty Principles Select Committee
The Justice Committee has reported back to the House on the Treaty Principles Bill. Thanks to ACT’s member on the Committee, Todd Stephenson, ALL of the submissions will be included in the final record, even though they couldn’t be processed in time for the report back.
The submissions have been roughly categorised as for or against. The Committee report says ninety per cent are against, and only eight per cent in favour. Free Press knows that’s misleading. The ACT Party and Hobson’s Pledge, two organisations heavily in favour of the bill, helped 55,000 submit between them. Those alone would be 17 per cent in favour but some organisations’ submissions were counted as one.
The truth is Select Committee submissions almost never reflect reality anyway. People are far more likely to submit in opposition to a bill than for it. Submissions on David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill were ninety per cent opposed, but it passed a referendum by two million votes to one million. A similar story played out with abortion law reform.
Like those examples, we know the public overwhelmingly support the principles proposed in the Bill. Scientific polling where everyone’s opinion has an equal chance of being included shows New Zealanders in favour of the principles by an average of two to one. When the third principle – that all people should be equal before the law – is read out, 62 per cent are in favour versus 18 per cent opposed.
A majority of Green voters, even, agree with the third principle, so all may not be lost. It’s the arguments that really matter, and what comes out of the Treaty Principles Bill hearings is that there are no arguments against the Bill. This week Free Press covers off the opponents’ attempts.
If anything, the submission process has shown why the Bill really is needed. Many submitters argued that the chiefs who signed the Treaty never ceded sovereignty. They believe that somehow descendants of the Chiefs shouldn’t have to follow Parliament’s laws (Te Pāti Māori has been acting this out).
The idea that investment, jobs, and growth need clarity from the law, and that people want to be treated equally before it, seems an afterthought to these submitters. As an aside, the ahistorical claim that 100,000 Māori wouldn’t have ceded sovereignty to 2,000 settlers shows how poor the debate in New Zealand has become. If a people devastated by the Musket Wars, worried about the French, and concerned about the threat of Europeans already ashore had nothing to gain from the unrivalled superpower of the day, why did they sign any Treaty at all?
Submitters also argued that Parliament cannot make this law, even if it has the right to make laws generally. The difference between Parliament, on the one hand, and the Courts, Waitangi Tribunal, and bureaucracy, on the other, is that Parliament is elected by the people. What the opponents are really saying is that the people should not have a say on their constitutional future, it should be decided by all the public institutions they can’t actually vote for. Telling people they cannot control the laws they live under usually ends in revolution, Free Press prefers democracy.
Opponents claimed at various times that Māori do not, in fact, have special rights in New Zealand. Just as many claimed that Māori in fact deserve special rights. This was best summed up in the following paragraph from the Green Party section of the report.
One often repeated statement was that Māori were given special privileges under the Resource Management Act. There was no substantive evidence provided for this, and the Auckland City Council in its oral submission rejected that this was the case. It is true that where there is an application for a resource consent for a use outside of the District Plan the interests of Māori, including local iwi and hapu, are relevant to decision making. However it is hard to understand how consultation with the mana whenua is in any way a special privilege.
The Bill gives all people equal rights. If Māori had no special rights there would be no reason to oppose the Bill. The facts are that Māori do have special rights under current law, including in Resource Management law, and that is why the Bill is opposed. Opposition to the Bill is opposition to equal rights for all people.
Other submitters said that the Bill prevents Governments trying to address people’s disadvantage. It does not. It prevents Governments discriminating by race, but there is no reason it cannot help disadvantaged people, regardless of race. There is no reason iwi cannot run charter schools, or their own healthcare, but any group should have the same opportunity. Seeing as not all Māori are disadvantaged and not all disadvantaged are Māori, racial profiling doesn’t do much good anyway.
So what next? The Bill will be debated in Parliament. ACT’s partners will have one last chance to do the right thing. If they do not, that is a shame for them. However it will not change how ACT works for your values. The party will never give up promoting universal human rights, and the next step of the Treaty Principles journey will be clear before the next election.
