Treaty Principles Bill

as a bog standard kiwi... as my parents and grandparents were......

i think treat a kiwi as a kiwi..... ffs if he/she/that roadcone has other identities that should be second.

Race(whatever it is)shouldnt even be a consideration. We are a small pimple on the as#hole of the world... why are we fighting each other? Surely all Kiwis would benefit if NZ was a single entity?

Currently im ashamed to be a born member of this banana republic.....

I guess from the activist point of view Seymour's bill takes away any chance of a Maori parliament which is what they seem to think should happen.

breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/11/peter-williams-luxon-misses-mark.html?m=1

Peter Williams: Luxon Misses the Mark

Why doesn't he like the Treaty Principles Bill?

The Prime Minister’s statement at his Monday media conference this week was quite staggering.

In response to a question from The Platform’s Sean Plunket, Christopher Luxon said about the Treaty Principles Bill “there isn’t anything I like.”

Read the Bill and then consider Luxon’s statement.

According to his own words the Prime Minister doesn’t like the full power of the Executive Government of New Zealand having the right to govern, or the Parliament of New Zealand having full powers to make laws in the best interests of everyone, in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

Furthermore he doesn’t like everyone being equal before the law and everyone being entitled without discrimination to the equal protection of the law and the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.

Because you see, those are the actual words lifted from Clause 6 of the Bill.

The other Principle laid out is one giving iwi and hapu the same rights they had under the Treaty of Waitangi at the time they signed it, unless there are different rights prescribed already in a settlement under the Treaty of Waitangi Act.

What’s more there is a specific clause in the Bill which says “Nothing in this Act amends the text of the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

So David Seymour’s Bill which finally legislates to define a vague phrase inserted into badly written law nearly half a century ago is straightforward and easy to understand.

It’s incomprehensible that the Prime Minister says there is nothing about the Bill that he likes.

How can a Prime Minister not believe in the right of the Government to govern and not like every citizen and resident in the country being equal before the law?

The counter factual would be that he thinks other entities can make law and some people have different rights to others.

His attitude is appalling and bordering on, well, treasonous.

During his media conference he went on at length about the “modern MMP environment” and how his National Party had to do a deal with Seymour’s Act Party to get a coalition agreement in place. The deal, as we know, was to support the Bill through First Reading and then to Select Committee but no further, even if Select Committee submissions and public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill.

He talked about the Bill having an “aeration” at the Select Committee but doubled down about why his party won’t support it because it is “divisive” and “we see no need for it.”

“We do not like this bill” he re-iterated.

Asked, again by Plunket, about whether he was confident that New Zealanders are happy with the principles as they stand at the moment, about how they’ve been arrived at and about how they’re applied he gave an answer to make Kamala Harris proud.

“There’re a range of views about the principles. The Treaty of Waitangi has served us incredibly well.”

Plunket went hard again.

“What is it in the Treaty Principles Bill that will stop that in the future?”

Luxon could hardly have been any more evasive.

“It’s a very simplistic interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which has served us incredibly well and to simplify it down to this is a disservice to the Treaty of Waitangi.”

He’s totally confused.

This Bill is not about reinterpreting or re-writing the Treaty. It says so in Clause 9.

It’s about defining Principles which were first mentioned in legislation in 1975 and then in many subsequent enactments.

Who can disagree with the Principles of a government having the right to govern, of iwi and hapu maintaining all their rights as laid out in legislation, and of every New Zealander being equal before the law?

There was more than a hint of what the problem is with the Bill when former MP Hone Harawira appeared on 1 News.

“We will keep marching till we get our sovereignty.”

What does that mean? Does he expect some yet to be determined Maori entity to govern or go-govern the country? Or does he expect two separate nations to emerge and live harmoniously side by side?

Te Pati Maori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said in the same news story “we will be paving our own future.”

Again, what does that mean? Does he want a separate Maori nation inside the current New Zealand landmass?

This is the issue with opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill. It’s full of ill-defined headline phrases but with no specific objections stated apart from the fact that it’s divisive and will cause tension in race relations.

The beauty of Seymour’s Bill is it’s simplicity. Voters like straightforward and uncomplicated law. This Bill could hardly be easier to understand.

Opinion polls suggest the majority of New Zealanders think it’s about time these half-century-old principles were finally defined.

Christopher Luxon hasn’t read the room.

For him to tell the country’s voters that he doesn’t like anything about the Treaty Principles Bill is one of the worst Prime Ministerial derelictions of duty in modern times.

'sigh'.

Princpals taking kids out of skool to go to ze protest.

Wrong on so many levels.

www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/11/make_principals_accountable.html


The Teaching Council is the body in New Zealand that registers teachers. They published last year their guidance for teachers when it comes to political involvement. They noted:

Teachers have the same rights to freedom of speech and political activity in your private lives as any New Zealander. Chatting about politics or policy in private conversation with colleagues in the staffroom or campaigning for a party in the weekend is all good (in general).

However, when acting as an employee, best practice is to be politically neutral (the Public Service Act has been amended, and teachers are now clearly part of the public service).

So this is pretty clear. Teachers can do politics as citizens, but not when acting in their professional capacity. They explicitly say teachers should not:

using my authority as a teacher to undermine the personal beliefs of my learners or inappropriately influence them to take a course of action

Now look at what Naenae School has done.

See link for screenshot

This is appalling. If teachers want to take leave and attend a protest march that is fine, but here the principal is announcing the school is taking an institutional stance on the Treaty of Principles Bill and they are taking the whole school to join in a protest march against the Government’s bill.

Apart from the ethical stance of using 5 – 10 year olds as pawns in a protest, the teachers doing this are clearly breaching the Teaching Council guidelines.

It is not clear who made the decision, but the principal is the leader of the school so is responsible. His name is Murray Bootten.

I would encourage people to file formal complaints that this action is a breach of the Teaching Council guidelines. Send them to the board chair and the Teaching Council. The board chair is Tina Renata. They don’t list an e-mail for her but use the office e-mail address. And you can fill in the Teaching Council form here.

I want to be very clear this is not to do with what their views are as an individual. If they want to attend a protest march as individuals, fine. But to bus in school children to a protest march is a breach of their professional standards, and their role as state employees funded by taxpayers.

And here you have a principal saying that their taxpayer funded school supports the protest march, and they will mark any student missing school to attend as having a justified absence. This is both breaching the law, and the Teaching Council neutrality standards.

The SWIS board chair is Mel Millington. You need to complaint to her first in order for the Teaching Council to then consider your complaint. But as the note says the board supports the decision, don’t expect a positive response. So also complain to with the Teaching Council form here.

Again this is not about their personal views. This is against what is a form of abuse – pushing their partisan political views on children.

so a bunch of Kings Counsel have written a letter opposing the principles bill, probably because they feel that they would be missing out on a lucrative stream of income
www.chrislynchmedia.com/news-items/kings-counsel-call-on-government-to-withdraw-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-citing-constitutional-concerns/
Scanning the list one name made me see red, she was was my ex wife's barrister when we split up, charged like a wounded bull but did next to nothing, even the ex complained about her. Meanwhile I got by with a senior associate.
I will keep this list in mind if I ever needed a KC in business or personally.

I think Seymour has his eye on the long game though DM.

Look at how the end of life bill panned out.

edit - my other 2p is that ACT and Te Cowboys parti will do very well out of this bill.

A lot of theatre.
Certainly Hannah Clarke riping up the TPB bill and starting the haka has made for a great little video to go on all the news sites. Just short enough for the attention span of her supporters. Noting the Herald are reporting a senior TVNZ exec has taken leave to go on the Hikoi. Media bias much.

I am still bemused how people say the bill is decisive when it calls for equal rights. That is such a tautology.