Author: Pete

Donald Trump was sworn in as 47^th President of the United States today. A key ally of his, Elon Musk, delivered a speech in which he performed the Nazi salute twice.

Trump has pardoned the January 6^th insurrectionists. He has issued executive orders to outlaw gender-affirming references in the US government. He has declared an intention to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada. He is withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord. And so many other disruptive things.

I can’t spend the next four years in a permanent state of outrage, and as a New Zealander I am shielded by some degree of distance. But this kind of shit spreads far and wide and with our right wing government we’ll see it percolate through more and more.

I cannot change or influence events in the US, except in terms of where I spend my money. Dialing back from Amazon would be a good start, I think.

The best way for New Zealanders to reject Trump is to reject those here who share his views. I won’t play my part as the triggered woke lib whining behind a keyboard as right wingers bait and troll the left. I’ve got more substantive mahi to do.

It’s no great piece of political analysis to say that for those of us on the Left, 2025 is shaping up to be a bad year. Donald Trump’s second term begins in a little over a week, governments are being shaken up in Europe and here in New Zealand we have entered the second year of the most right-wing government this country has seen since 1991.

It’s not a good time. But I do have some hope.

First here in New Zealand we see it in how opposition to David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill has coalesced. Not only in terms of last year’s hīkoi, but also in how many submissions have been made on the bill. Over 300,000. And from my impression of social media, most objectors are not making duplicate submissions, which is indicative of the intensity of opposition. It is not mere slacktivisim where submitters simply fill out a mass-submission.

Another point of protest emerged last year over the government’s proposed cuts to the Dunedin Hospital build, with 35,000 angry southerners – myself amongst them – marching against the government’s broken promise.

My point is citizens opposed to this government are engaged, active and organised. Which I think is rare for a first term government, at least in my experience.

Turning to the broader international context, there really is very little that someone like me in New Zealand could do to impact the American government. Online life in the English speaking world is heavily weighed towards American defaultism. So we tend to pick up American attitudes and points of view even just by osmosis.

The techbro culture that has arisen in support of Trump makes easy targets for me to express my disapproval. And at the same time it offers a way to protect myself from the pessimistic doom-scrolling that I engaged in from 2016-2021. I already ejected Twitter/X from my digital ecosystem some time ago. My final post was in mid 2023 and I finally deleted my account in November.

Facebook is a tougher nut to crack – mainly due to Messenger – but I have deactivated Instagram, cancelled push notifications and removed the Facebook app from my homescreen on my phone.

Amazon is probably the hardest of all, and a complete boycott is likely impossible – consider how many sites use AWS, for example – but I can at least dial back on what I spend there. Instead of making number go up, do my bit to make number go down.

On the whole, though, I intend to stick to my knitting and worry about what I can change here in New Zealand. I’ve always resisted the idea that New Zealanders are insular hobbits with a Shire mentality, but I think it’s time to embrace it.

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.