Month: December 2024

My Submission on the Treaty Principles Bill

My name is Peter Sime. I am 45 years old. I live in Dunedin. I identify as pākehā.

I oppose the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and strongly suggest the Select Committee advise against its passage in any form.

My objections to the principles are :

Principle 1

Principle 1 claims “full authority of the Executive Government of New Zealand to govern”.

“Executive Government” is not defined within the Bill. Acts of Parliament concerning New Zealand’s constitution are far more precise in their expression of who holds what power. The Constitution Act 1986, for example, is careful to discuss the role of the Sovereign, the Executive Council and powers of Ministers of the Crown. The Public Service Act 2020 contemplates the role of State Agencies and Departments.

The broad and novel term “Executive Government” is imprecise and cannot contemplate what happens where the functions and duties of different arms of the Executive may come into conflict with one another.

Finally, this is a denial of the principle of rangatiratanga guaranteed in article two of the Treaty of Waitangi and excludes formal Māori involvement in the decision-making processes affecting their resources and taonga.

Principle 1 also asserts that the Parliament of New Zealand has full Power to make laws.

This is already established under Section 15(1) of the Constitution Act 1986, which states: “The Parliament of New Zealand continues to have full power to make laws”. Under Chapter 3.3 of the Legislation Guidelines (2021) of the Legislation Design Advisory Committee:

“New legislation should not restate matters already addressed in existing legislation.

Where a provision in existing legislation satisfactorily addresses an issue, it is preferable not to repeat that provision in new legislation. This kind of duplication often results in unintended differences, especially where legislation is amended over time or where the legislation is intended to address a different policy objective.”

Therefore Principle 1 should not be in the Bill as the functions and powers of the Executive and the Legislature are already thoroughly outlined by the Constitution Act, the Public Service Act and other relevant statutes.

Principle 2

Principle 2(1) limits the application of the rights of Māori to those held at the time the Treaty was signed. This freezes Māori rights in time and relegates the Treaty to be a redundant historical curiosity rather than a living document that underpins contemporary New Zealand society.

In the years since 1840 concepts such as corporate personhood and intellectual property have advanced. There also have been scientific discoveries such as radio waves. Without such advances, innovations such as the legal personhood of the Whanganui River, the protection of Māori interests in free trade deals or the propagation of te reo Māori through radio spectrum management would not have been achieved.

Crown responsibilities around climate change, animal extinction and other environmental impacts have become more clear in recent years even though these things would not have been contemplated in 1840. As our science progresses and society changes, Principle 2 locks in an interpretation that should continue to evolve and advance with contemporary New Zealand society. For this reason it should not be in the Bill.

Principle 3

This principle asserts equal protection for all before the law. This is already articulated in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Section 27(1) in particular says:

“Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.”

Again, as this principle restates a matter already covered by existing legislation, it should not be included in the Bill.

Conclusion

Should this pass the Legislature would be abrogating its responsibility over guaranteeing the foundational Treaty rights held by Tangata Whenua. This Bill as a whole steamrolls through a careful and sometimes contentious conversation between iwi and the Crown. By seeking to redefine the Treaty in this way, the Crown unilaterally neuters it and expropriates the rights that have been recognised ever since the passage of the Act in 1975.

Further, by proposing a referendum for this constitutional outrage, the Government (as this is a Government Bill) risks social cohesion through engaging in populist politics. This Bill should be abandoned immediately.

I read National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy

We all know there have been significant political events this year, and in an effort to improve my understanding around why Trump won a second term, I read National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin (Pelican Books, 2018).

What I hadn’t counted on were some uncomfortable realisations about New Zealand politics in 2024 and why certain policies are being advanced.

The authors, looking at the electoral success of national populists with Trump in the United States, Brexit in the United Kingdom and growing movements across Europe of varying degrees of influence and success. They identify four broad transformations over the decades which have contributed to this. They call them the four Ds:

People’s distrust of the increasingly elitist nature of liberal democracy, which has fueled a feeling among many that they no longer have a voice in the conversation …

Ongoing anxieties about the destruction of the nation that have been sharpened by rapid immigration and a new era of hyper-ethnic change …

Strong concerns about relative deprivation resulting from the shift towards an increasingly unequal economic settlement, which has stoked the correct belief that some groups are being unfairly left behind relative to others …

The rise of de-alignment from the traditional parties, which has rendered our political systems more volatile and larger numbers of people ‘available’ to listen to new promises, while others have retreated into apathy.

(p.271-272)

The authors are also careful to point out the supporters of populists are not uniform and have different motivations for why they may support them. This is a particularly important point for those of us on the Left who oppose the destructive consequences of national populism.

Anyway, in New Zealand the chief proponents of populism are within the current government, spread across three parties.

Distrust of elites exists across the political spectrum. On the Left, it tends to be of the rich and powerful. On the Right, it tends to be of those with inconvenient expertise. So David Seymour refuses to name his translator of the Treaty of Waitangi and expert te reo Māori translators have said it is bunk. Legal experts, historians, even the Waitangi Tribunal have condemned it. But their expertise offers nothing for Seymour. In fact he positions himself as fighting against these elites.

Further examples include Nicola Willis’s decision to cancel the contract for the Cook Strait ferries, and the decision of Casey Costello to halve the excise on heated tobacco products.

“Analyis of officials’ advice has found the majority of new laws and regulations introduced in the Government’s first year have been affected by time constraints and a lack of evidence, or evidence that does not support legislative changes.” – Newsroom

In terms of destruction of the nation, immigration isn’t nearly as contentious here as it is elsewhere in the western world. Our distance and lack of land borders pretty much eliminates that as an issue, although a search for Winston Peters in relation to the subject reveals that he has often made political capital of that issue over the years. Indeed, the Royal Commission into the terrorist attack in Christchurch highlighted social cohesion as a New Zealand characteristic worth safeguarding.

However, Māori have felt the brunt of this instead over the past year, with the afore mentioned Treaty Principles Bill, closure of agencies created specifically to target their needs and a delegitimisation of the Māori language at government level.

There is scope for a left-wing populist message to draw back votes from the right, especailly as the past year has proven to be such a shit show. I think this is an important book to read for politically engaged people, especially those of us on the left.

While New Zealand is insulated from many of the same issues the US faces, the experiences of the past year clearly point to a strong influence of right wing populism on our government and how it tries to craft a policy programme it thinks will appeal to New Zealand. I’m not buying what they’re selling.

Recommended.

The Light We Cannot See

Lindsay Creek, Dunedin Botanic Gardens

I’m getting a bit more interested in infrared photography and I have a little point and shoot I’ve installed CHDK on – a hack that allows it to shoot RAW – and I’m planning to make a hardware modification to it to turn it into a dedicated full spectrum camera.

In the meantime I have to satisfy myself with slow shutter speeds and a 720nm filter that is best rendered as black and white. Here’s an example from last year.

The Beach by Alex Garland

I finished reading this book today which had been languishing on my bookcase since I bought it some time in the late 2000s. Part of my general “read what you own or borrow from the library” policy. We’ll see how long that lasts, but I’ve got no need of new books for a long, long time in that case.

Trouble in paradise is one of the oldest stories in the world. And at its heart that is the story this 1996 novel tells. In which a group of western backpackers in search of an authentic experience unspoiled by tourism find themselves living on a beach on a seemingly remote and virgin island.

In that way they’re kind of like the proverbial motorist who complains about traffic, oblivious to the fact they themselves are part of the problem. Further, they actually are disdainful of the Thai people and really you could look at the titular beach as a kind of western enclave. On the other hand, when you travel the locals aren’t there to amuse you. They are people just living their lives.

So a lot of the characters are unlikable. But that doesn’t mean the novel itself is. It’s well written as a first-person narrative and is a bit of a time capsule. Reminds me of Paul Theroux crossed with Heart of Darkness and Lord of the Flies.

I give it 3 out of 5.

Panto

I went to my niece’s high school pantomime this evening. She danced well as a 1920s flapper. I think it was the Charleston, but I’m no expert in dance. I kind of have two left feet in that regard. At the very least it was Charleston adjacent – which looking at a map makes it a Summerville, or maybe a Georgetown.

But crikey, Christmas is looming and I really need to get a wriggle on with my shopping.

A Quiet Sunday

Not much going on today. I watched an interview of the Prime Minister and my opinion that he’s a complete dipshit remains unchanged.

My other political activity of the day was starting work on my submission against the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. I’ll post it here once complete.

Otherwise it was a pretty cruisy day. I read a bit more of The Beach by Alex Garland. Played a bit of Elite: Dangerous. And pretty much chilled.