Oliver Hartwich’s Post

📊 The case for nuance in NZ's Treaty debate The Treaty Principles debate raises a fundamental question: how should a modern democracy handle the evolution of its foundational documents? I explore this challenge in my column in today's Australian. #NewZealand #PublicPolicy #Governance #Treaty

  • Lesson's in Kiwis' polarising treaty debate

This is one of the worst written and most poorly argued pieces of prose I have seen in a very long time. It reeks of a lack of understanding of issues that whilst nuanced, are neither complex nor difficult. And most importantly, there is zero appreciation of any form of Māori perspective, or that Seymour’s Bill seeks to solve a problem that does not exist, and is all but universally perceived within Māori circles (Shane Jones doesn’t count) as an utter betrayal by Luxon for short term political ends. Very disappointing, but not actually that surprising.

VK Walker

I improve worker wellbeing by connecting Maori culture with health and safety.

2w

I recognise the contribtuion Oliver. For better framing and brevity, I suggest examining the two-part opinion piece, from former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer KC who has curated over decades a quality body of work that interfaces the Treaty and NZ constitutional law including its conventions.  https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/09/24/the-dubious-politics-of-the-treaty-principles-bill/ I find reactions to this piece also interesting.  As a Māori I have benefitted from equity-based education policies that are Treaty based and as a NZ citizen I contribute back as productive member of NZ society because of those policies. That narrative is common.  Many protesters including non Māori want to protect that interface and those gains. I share some libertarian views such as self-determination, and its comparable, Tino rangatiratanga. People forget that when ACT was established that relationship was emphasized to appeal to Māori voters however, under the Bill that is, moreover, proposed by ACT, it is now being rejected.  I am left with the conclusion that the Bill is only for political gain for this moment in time. Its introduction lacks integrity and its purported value to improve NZ society is negligible.

Peter Harrison

Managing Director at ThinkPlace

1w

I would argue that the debate is not as polarising as some commentators would like to think. We’re seeing a massive amount of support for Te Tiriti being our future (not only our past) from Tangata Tiriti, not just Tangata Whenua. 100,000+ people outside parliament, 300,000 signatures on a petition. There is a powerful groundswell that is building. A treaty, by its very nature, should be open to ongoing evolution - but, and this is the critical point, that should be done through discussion and agreement between the parties to the treaty. The avoidance of engagement with iwi and hapū is what is driving a level of unity around the importance of Te Tiriti that I have not seen in my lifetime.

I don't think its ethical to incite the lowly educated.

Like
Reply
Rosina Triponel

Community Advocate - Recruitment Horizon Pacific

3d

Oi what happened to the link I asked for on that Angela Merkel interview? While I’m waiting Toitū Te Tiriti!

Like
Reply
Matthew Hooton

Strategic Consultant: Communications, PR and GR; columnist for NZ Herald, Auckland Metro and The Australia; Philosopher; Honorary Consul for Mongolia

6d

Good, strong, sensible, right-wing perspective

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics