Some interesting parts that caught my eye:

  1. If the hearings are a good indicator of overall submissions, most submitters oppose this bill.
  1. Most of us can generally agree that the principles laid out in the Treaty principles bill do not accurately reflect what was written in the Treaty or te Tiriti, or the likely intention of those signing it.
  1. Just because it’s your bill, doesn’t mean you have to show up – Act Party Justice Committee members were no-shows for most of the subcommittee hearings into the Treaty principles bill.
  1. Being on the conservative side of politics doesn’t necessarily mean this bill will appeal to you, as displayed by submissions in opposition from Chris Finlayson and Dame Jenny Shipley.
  1. Media interest in these things can wane pretty quickly. On the first day of hearings, essentially every media outlet was in Room 3. In the final week, only Whakaata Māori and The Spinoff remained.
  • Dave@lemmy.nzOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    The first one was paywalled or something (unspecified “you can’t read this” message) but I read through the second one. Do we know to what extent this is in the coalition agreement? Is it pre-determined to become law or is it one of those things where it’s been agreed to get it past the first reading into a select committee?

    • BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      That’s weird. The first one works just fine for me.

      The first paragraph on that page says

      “The coalition Government has agreed to pass a Regulatory Standards Bill, proposed by the ACT Party, which will further tilt the political playing field to advantage vested interests.”

      So yea it’s a done deal even though it’s not even though the draft hasn’t been submitted. They used the treaty bill as a distraction to push this one through. Well planned and executed by David Seymour. He knows how to play this game.