Some interesting parts that caught my eye:
- If the hearings are a good indicator of overall submissions, most submitters oppose this bill.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
I think this is an important point that needs more coverage:
Many submitters were more worried about how the Regulatory Standards Bill would impact Treaty obligations than the Treaty principles bill.
As I understand it, the Treaty bill is a sideshow and the Regulatory Standards Bill is where the actual damage is quietly being done.
I don’t know much about the Regulatory Standards Bill. I read the summary but I feel this is a devil in the detail type thing. Is there a good write-up about it?
Tldr it seeks to enshrine Libertarian principles in how laws are made in NZ, including retrospectively. So it’s a constitutional change.
Here’s a good article explaining how its focus on protecting wealth and property would make it much harder to have any legislation that promotes social good or benefits the environment.
And here is a Maori perspective on how it prevents lawmakers from taking Te Tiriti into consideration.
It’s been around - and rejected - for years, having been first proposed by Roger Douglas. The fact that National agreed to make a worse version of it law is quite weird.
Hmm I think I have read that first article in the past. Man I hate the direction we are heading.
Me too, especially the undemocratic stuff, e.g. this bill’s having David Seymour pick a board of people who property developers etc can complain to about NZ’s existing laws.
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?
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.
Ah ok, that sucks. Maybe with some luck it will get diluted through the select committee process.
The site has this message for me:
The more details link goes here: https://stuffcustomercare.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/43634195444505-Why-can-t-I-access-articles-Fix-Network-or-Browser-Issues
I assumed ad blocker was the issue but maybe it’s something else. There are half a dozen potential reasons and I’m kinda sick of Stuff’s shit 🤷
Edit: I discovered I can just use the reader mode in firefox and it shows me the article.
The only way it will get diluted is if the press puts it out front and the public get outraged.
So what I am saying is slim chance of that happening.
Tldr it seeks to enshrine Libertarian principles in how laws are made in NZ, including retrospectively. So it’s a constitutional change.
Here’s a good article explaining how its focus on protecting wealth and property would make it much harder to have any legislation that promotes social good or benefits the environment.
I generally don’t like statements like this
“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.”
No group of humans agree 100% with any topic. There will always be a few people who will disagree with any party platform or policy or whatever.
The fact remains that the right was overwhelmingly in support of this bill. A few stragglers here and there doesn’t counter that.
I genuinely don’t get why people are bothering to make submissions on this.
The bill is dead, both National and NZ First have said they will not support it beyond the second reading, and this was always the plan. It will never become law.
What is the point of making submissions on a bill like this?
I think number 1 is it’s important to people, and this is the government actively reaching out to hear from people. So it’s a chance for their views to be heard, on the record, which I think is really important.
2 is that when negotiating you start with an anchor value, something too high to be realistic but it pulls the negotiating in that direction. This bill we knew would not pass but the next one may go through because it’s not as bad. Now the government knows there is very little support for any change to the current stance. If no one made a submission we would be back with a new bill in not too long.
What was the point of pushing the bill in the first place especially after the PM said it was DOA?
The point was to move the overton window. You take the loss but you move the country closer to the racist future you envision.
This is the same reason people made submissions. They don’t want to move the overton window and they want to fight at every step of the way because moving even one step in the direction that David Seymour wants to move the country is harmful to people.
If we don’t fight now it will send a signal to the white supremacist that the field has been cleared for them, that the next time they will succeed.
