National needs an alternative

National agreed to support Act’s Treaty Principles Bill no further than the first reading.

While I don’t think a referendum is the right way to address the issue of defining the principles, I do think that they ought to be defined and find nothing alarming in the definition the Bill proposes:

Principle 1

The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,—

(a) in the best interests of everyone; and

(b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

Principle 2

(1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.

(2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

Principle 3

(1) Everyone is equal before the law.

(2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—

(a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and

(b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.

How something as democratic as that can be divisive is beyond me and that the Bill is divisive is no reason not to support it.

Divisive means there are at least two sides to the issue already and killing the Bill dead without an alternative will not be then end of it for those who seek something a lot more clearly defined than what we have now.

Ill-defined and undefined law is bad law and the principles while placed in many laws and also in practices by central and local governments, their offshoots and other organisations are not defined.

Moves to define the principles will not go away when the Bill is killed.

If the government doesn’t do something to define the principles then, as is already happening, courts will continue to put their own interpretation on them.

National must come up with an alternative, and one that satisfies not just both of its coalition partners but also the public.

Failure to do so won’t just be a failure of leadership, it will be handing Act, and possibly New Zealand First a lot of support at the next election.