The poison pill smuggled in with the Indian FTA

Another Constitutional Trojan Horse: advancing change through political stealth

FOR ALL THE FOOLISH NONSENSE about "tsunamis" talked about the Indian-NZ Free Trade Deal, there is a genuine issue that Gary Judd KC has identified in reading through it, and it's not about free trade or butter chicken. It's about a poisonous clause inserted at the obvious behest of the NZ negotiators. 

"The striking feature of this Free-Trade Agreement," notes Judd, "is that it brings the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into the text of a trade treaty. That is not a side issue. It is a political and constitutional declaration inserted into an agreement that is supposed to be about trade. ... New Zealand’s Free-Trade Agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union refer to indigenous rights and Māori participation. But the India agreement goes further. It is the first to affirm UNDRIP expressly. That is a significant escalation."

Why the hell is it there?

Everything points to this UNDRIP wording having been included at New Zealand’s initiative, not India’s. India appears to have agreed only on condition that its longstanding reservation was recorded. There is no obvious reason why India would want UNDRIP written into a trade agreement with New Zealand. ...

If it truly changed nothing, it would not be there. The obvious reason for including it is not trade with India but politics within New Zealand. A trade agreement is being used to advance a domestic constitutional and political agenda. That is an abuse of the treaty-making process. A provision with no real trade function, but clear ideological value at home, has no legitimate place in a Free-Trade Agreement.

Once this affirmation is in a ratified treaty, it will inevitably be invoked inside New Zealand as proof that the country is committed to UNDRIP in a serious and operative way, not merely in some airy symbolic sense. Lawyers, activists and judges will be invited to treat it as yet another marker of state commitment. To dismiss that as mere technicality would be naive.

You'll remember that Helen Clark, as Prime Minister, was astute enough to have her UN representative vote against the Declaration -- one of only four nations to oppose.  (As Judd notes: "India voted in favour (see here) but immediately made it clear that it did so subject to an important reservation. That same reservation now reappears in the FTA.")

It was John Key who blithely acceded to signing up simply in order to bolster his parliamentary support from Pita Sharples's Maori Party. 

What Key casually signed away was not trivial, as we saw when Ardern's Labour Government began drawing up the He Puapua document under UNDRIP's impetus. "He Puapua is not a minor discussion paper," Judd reminds us. "It is a blueprint for major constitutional change, including forms of co-governance. One example is paragraph 15: 'If they choose, Maori must be able to participate in Crown governance."

Clark's objection to the Declaration was principled, and what Clark's UN representative  Rosemary Banks said about it then is as valid now: Four provisions in the Declaration in particular were [and still are] "fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements, [with] the Treaty of Waitangi, and [with] the principle of governing for the good of all its citizens."

What were those four provisions?

• Article 26 stated that indigenous peoples had a right to own, use, develop or control lands and territories that they had traditionally owned, occupied or used. For New Zealand, the entire country was potentially caught within the scope of the article, which appeared to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous, and did not take into account the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned. The article, furthermore, implied that indigenous peoples had rights that others did not have.
• The entire country would also appear to fall within the scope of article 28 on redress and compensation. The text generally took no account of the fact that land might now be occupied or owned legitimately by others, or subject to numerous different or overlapping indigenous claims.
• Finally, the Declaration['s articles 19 and 32] implied that indigenous peoples had a right of veto over a democratic legislature and national resource management, she said. She strongly supported the full and active engagement of indigenous peoples in democratic decision-making processes. New Zealand also had some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the world. But the articles in the Declaration implied different classes of citizenship, where indigenous had a right to veto that other groups or individuals did not have.

In short, the Declaration set up two standards of citizenship based on race, and a legal veto over other's property based on ancestry. Clark understood that. Key was too dim.

And so too are Luxon and Todd McClay, who either called for this clause's insertion in the Indian FTA themselves, or were insufficiently astute to have seen it there and taken out.

The He Puapua programme itself was begun without explicit acknowledgement of its goals. Those goals, indeed its very existence, were only revealed when it began to seem that some underlying framework was at play in Willy Jackson's and Nanaia Mahuta's legislative agenda.  Turns out there was. Media organisations uncovered the document, who then obtained it under the Official Information Act, and it was finally released only in April 2021 after pressure from the Ombudsman. "That is not transparent government," points out Judd. "It is disclosure dragged out by resistance."

The irony is that the same thing is happening here. 

Neither Government appears ready to argue openly for setting up two standards of citizenship based on race and ancestry.

Instead, they have to do it by stealth.

Gary Judd explains the danger in detail here, including illustrations "why ratifying the FTA in its present form is not a harmless gesture." I recommend the read.

He concludes:

What is most objectionable in all this is the contempt it shows for ordinary New Zealanders. Constitutional change of this magnitude should be argued for openly, defended honestly and submitted to democratic judgment. Instead, it has been advanced by ministers, officials and sympathetic elites through opaque processes, delayed disclosure and legal increment. That is no way to alter the foundations of a country.

The obvious remedy is greater democratic control. If politicians, officials or judges wish to drive constitutional change, they should have to defend it before the public in clear terms and win consent for it, not smuggle it through advisory reports, bureaucratic process or the fine print of a trade treaty.

That is the real issue raised by this agreement: not trade, but whether constitutional change in New Zealand will occur by democratic choice or by political stealth.

Have political parties begun to get some rat cunning into how to best manipulate MMP to their advantage? [updated]

I don't want to be conspiratorial here .... but could it be that major political parties have begun to get some rat cunning into how to best manipulate MMP to their advantage.

Both Labour and National may have finally recognised that their odds of winning a full majority in an MMP election are about as likely as Winston Peters agreeing to selling off state assets. So is that why Luxon expressed mild but undefined interest this week in doing just that? Was it to give a hoped-for future coalition party a prop upon which to launch next year's election campaign?

It seems as likely a notion as that Labour and the Māori Party have recognised the huge advantage for them both to be gained by the 'overhang' that happens when a party has more electorate MPs than can be justified by their party vote—so they've done their best to bust their party vote while simultaneously raising the profile of those electorate MPs.

That's a risky game to play, of course, but there's no real risk to Labour. Is that why Willie Jackson is walking around looking so pleased with himself.

UPDATE: I hate to say I told you so. Here's Tākuta Ferris pontificating:

Here’s the truth under MMP:
   When Labour wins Māori seats, it does not create the political leverage of a OVERHANG! It simply reduces the number of MPs they bring in from their party vote. And in doing so, it hands the keys to the Beehive straight back to Luxon, Seymour and Winston.
   The only guaranteed mechanism that increases the potential to actually change who governs is an OVERHANG! Created when independent Māori MPs win electorate seats.

Seymour’s a what?

NOT SURE ABOUT YOU, but it looks to me like a whole lot of the commentariat are melting down about David Seymour becoming Deputy Prime Minister — despite the role being as much use as a glass eye at a keyhole.

The most absurd critiques, and here I'm looking at Wee Willie Jackson and Mihinarangi Forbes, goes at him for being "a libertarian." Which poses some kind of a dangerous threat, apparently, despite libertarians famously not caring what goes on behind your closed doors. 

You can just watch Jackson, especially, foaming at the mouth over the weekend:

"David Seymour is an extremist ... 

"his far right libertarian 'solutions' ... 

"his Free Market Libertarian extremism ...  

"David is a dangerous libertarian extremist ... 

"David Seymour is a very dangerous libertarian extremist."

Etc.

Wow. 

At least Willlie seems fully aware of hyperbole. 

But is Seymour really a libertarian?

And if so, how would that be a threat to anyone?

It's pretty clear his critics have no idea, since they can't articulate any.

After all, what is it to be a libertarian?

The most topical answer comes from Javier Milei:

What's a libertarian?
Someone who believes in unrestricted respect for the life projects of others.

A libertarian is someone who believes in unrestricted respect for the life projects of others. It's damned hard to see how that's a threat to anyone.

Unless, that is, your life project is like Willie's, which is to place your snout permanently into a race-based trough.

Click through for video ...

ANYWAY, TO FURTHER ASSIST poor Mihi and Wee Willie, who remain confused on this point, Javier Milei explains in the video above the difference between right wing, left wing, and libertarian. (Maybe Mihi could use it in her next scare story re-running her vacuous Atlas conspiracy): 

Interviewer: What is it to be libertarian? ... Why do you define yourself as a libertarian?

Milei: I define it for you by default [by opposites].

What would someone on the right be like? Someone who doesn't mind who you trade with -- is a liberal economically speaking -- but it bothers him who you get into bed with. Who is a "cultural conservative."

Int.: Repeat that?

Milei: A right-wing person is someone who is economically liberal, someone who doesn't care who you trade with, but cares who you sleep with. Who is a "cultural conservative." 

Int.: Okay. I get it.

Milei: On the other hand, a left-wing person is liberal culturally --- they don't care who you get into bed with -- but is interventionist economically; they don't let you trade with whomever you want.

So, what would a libertarian be?

Someone who believes in unrestricted respect for the life project of others. [W]ho believes consenting adults can get into bed with whoever you want -- with every one you want. 

Int.: Is that how a libertarian thinks? 

Milei: Exactomento.

And obviously you can trade with whoever you want. 

Int.: You are libertarian then?

Milei: Exactomento. 

So in Spanish ...

[Pic by LaNewzViewz]

Perhaps if MPs did have an actual argument, they would use it?

"When did it become permissible for Members of Parliament to treat select committee submitters with condescension, disdain or thinly disguised contempt? ... for men and women with impeccable professional reputations and years of service to the New Zealand community to expect their appearance before a parliamentary select committee to serve as an excuse for MPs to hector and insult them, and to ignore completely the content of their submissions?
    "Sadly, the answer to those questions would appear to be ‘right here, right now’. ...
    "All the evidence required to construct the case is readily accessible in the official video recordings of the Justice Select Committee’s hearings on the Treaty Principles Bill, particularly in the reception given to retired District Court Judge, David Harvey, by MPs representing Labour and Te Pāti Māori. ...
    "Why submit oneself, or one’s ideas, to such dismissive treatment? ...
    "Some have written-off [a 2021] incident [involving Deborah Russell] as just one more example of covid-induced madness.
    "But, if that is the explanation, then how is the extraordinary rudeness towards David Harvey and other submitters in support of David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to be accounted for?
    "Why would Labour’s Willie Jackson feel free to chide a former District Court judge, whose career is as distinguished as it is free of professional and/or personal blemish, as if he were some errant legal backwoodsman, unaware of the intellectual powerhouses ranged against his unsophisticated opinions?
    "Why would Te Pāti Māori’s Rawiri Waititi imply that the submissions of a judicial officer backing Seymour’s bill largely explain the ongoing legal oppression of his people?
    "Why would the Labour MP for Christchurch Central, Duncan Webb, a former law professor, show no interest in addressing the legal arguments contained in Harvey’s submission? ...
    "The kindest construction one could put upon the conduct of the three MPs in question is that they are unshakeably convinced that the “European colonialist” ideology contained in the Treaty Principles Bill poses such an existential threat to the future of Māori in Aotearoa that any serious consideration of arguments submitted in support of it cannot be countenanced. Those offering such support do not deserve to be taken seriously and should not expect to be. ...
    "To rule out even the possibility of compromise can only hasten the transformation of select committee hearings into the 21st century equivalent of Soviet-era show trials, the sole purpose of which would be to demonstrate publicly the adverse consequences of wrong-think."

~ Chris Trotter from his post ' When parliamentary hearings on controversial bills become hostile echo chambers'

Thieving scum

 

Twenty-three parasites. (Back pockets not pictured.) [PIC: Dom Post]

Go on, when you read the headline you already had a fair idea about whom this would be.

Yes, readers: politicians.

A person with a smile painted on at the front and a bulging back pocket in behind.

Thieving scum.

A fair proportion of whom are taking your money to stay in their own Wellington home:

DOM POST: Twenty-three MPs are claiming an allowance [sic] of between $34,000 and $52,000 [per annum] to stay in their own Wellington homes, a perk that sees the taxpayer help politicians pay off their mortgages.

Nice. I'm sure to most of these entities that kind of money is the sort of chump change that fills up the back of the couch; but there's many a taxpayer who would that like that kind of money back to pay their own goddamned mortgage. 

Dom Post reports the scum includes "six National Party ministers, the Speaker Gerry Brownlee and deputy speaker Barbara Kuriger [who] claim the capped allowance to [supposedly] cover living costs in the city," poor lambs. "They then use it," says the Dom Post, "to pay rent on property they already own. Seven Labour MPs and two from ACT are also receiving up to $34,000 a year, the maximum paid to backbenchers." 

Yes folks, the entitle-itis is parliament-wide. The Dom Post names the roll call of thieving scum to be these:

ACT

Simon Court

Todd Stephenson

NATIONAL

Mark Mitchell

Melissa Lee

Louise Upston

Stuart Smith

Barbara Kuriger

David MacLeod

Tim Costley

Paul Goldsmith

Judith Collins

Catherine Wedd

Andrew Bayley

Vanessa Weenink

Paul Garcia

Gerry Brownlee

LABOUR

Keiran McAnulty

Willie Jackson

Duncan Webb

Arena Williams

Jan Tinetti

Jenny Salesa

Deborah Russell

As the Post wryly notes, "Many of these MPs have extensive property portfolios."

Some of these parasites have form already, claiming large "expenses" and the accommodation allowance, including ACT's big-spending Todd Stephenson and National's Judith Collins and Louise Upston; and Labour's Willy Jackson, Jan Tinetti, Deborah Russell, Jenny Salesa, Arena Williams and Duncan Webb are all there again, treating the taxpayer as an ATM machine. (This attitude is truly everywhere, isn't it.)

Scum. 

Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

Parliamentary entitle-itis is catching

It's not just Christopher Luxon with a bad case of entitle-itis. There is a raft of other MPs and ministers who think taxppayers — you – should help them pay their mortgages on their Wellington homes.

MP expenses came to almost $1.7m and Ministerial expenses came to more than $670,000. ... The National Party - which has the largest caucus in the Parliament - spent the most on expenses in the period, totalling almost $731,000.

Here's a list of the scum currently or recently claiming large "expenses" and accommodation allowances from you (costs are for three months, unless stated):

• Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was the biggest expense of the lot, at a cost of just more than $57,500 - including VIP transport of more than $39,000. The rest was made up of costs of almost $7500 for accommodation, air travel of $9500 and "surface" - ground travel, such as taxis of more than $1300
• The next highest expenses cost in National's caucus was Auckland-based Defence Minister Judith Collins, at a cost of more than $24,200, made up of more than $6000 for accommodation and just over $18,000 on travel. Also giving the trough a decent nudge were West Coast's Maureen Pugh at just over $21.500; Taupo's Louise Upston at $21,000; and Christchurch-based Matt Doocey and Rotorua-based Todd McLay at just under $20,500.
• During the last Government, there were four ministers in the same situation as Luxon, living in their own homes in Wellington and claiming the ministerial accommodation allowance, which is up to $45,000 a year. These were Willy Jackson, Jan Tinetti, Deborah Russell and Duncan Webb. All are likely to claim again this year, but on a lower accommodation allowance.
• In addition, last year four other Labour MPs were living in their own Wellington properties while claiming the allowance. These were: Jenny Salesa, Arena Williams, Jamie Strange and Sarah Pallet.
• And in 2024, there are now 20 MPs (not yet named yet) with second-homes in Wellington who are claiming up to $45,000 so that taxpayers can help pay their mortgages.
• Labour's David Parker and Manurewa MP Arena Williams both claimed around $23,000 on expenses. Ingrid Leary in South Otago and Tangi Utikere in Palmerston North.
• Greens's Manurewa-based co-leader Marama Davidson enjoyed almost $26,000 of largesse in her last two months in the ministry trough. Third-assistant speaker Teanau Tuiono declared almost $25,000 of expenses, while Auckland-based Chloe Swarbrick grabbed $17,500 and former Greenpeace activist Steve Abel claimed just over $17,000. 
• ACT's Mark Cameron, based in rural Northland, declared almost $21,000 in expenses, the highest of any ACT MP. That included almost $10,000 on accommodation and a similar amount on travel. ACT's second-highest grasper is Todd Stephenson, living in Queenstown, claiming just under $19,000.
• NZ First's Jamie Arbuckle, from Marlborough, spent more than $16,000, while Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi - who lives in a remote part of his Waiariki electorate - spent $36,500 of your money, and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer nearly $22,500.
• Other big spenders in the last few months include and Grant Robertson, given $42,369 to go see the rugby, 

A nice rort, if you can get it.

The lowest spenders [include] new Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds, who is based near Wellington. She spent $521, most of which was $403 on flights. ... and [Labour] Leader Chris Hipkins - who is based in Upper Hutt - declared $1129, all of which was on flights. 

Good for them. On this, if nothing else.

Is "badly" really the right word here?

"Newshub political editor Jenna Lynch has predicted 'absolute carnage and political armageddon' for Labour – pointing out the party risks losing senior MPs like David Parker, Willie Jackson, Adrian Rurawhe, and Ayesha Verrall. And if things go really badly, even Finance Minister Grant Robertson could be chucked out."

~ Bryce Edwards, from his post 'Ten reasons Labour’s support has halved'

"It’s time to ask why New Zealand needs the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Just another Big Government censor to tell journalists what they can say."

    "Izzy Cook is the 16 year old version of Greta Thunberg in New Zealand. She unravelled spectacularly as a political leader and a climate star during a radio interview last September....
    "But now some government Watchdog in New Zealand has declared it was an unfair joke and the broadcaster was reprimanded and has apologised. Apparently the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) thinks radio interviewers must not deter 'passionate young people' from making fantasy declarations and issuing vaporous wish lists live to air...
    "It’s time to ask why New Zealand needs the BSA? Just another Big Government censor to tell journalists what they can say and interfere with what New Zealanders are allowed to hear ....
    "New Zealanders who see biased, offensive, unbalanced and inaccurate reporting can complain to the BSA. New Zealanders who think the BSA is a parasitic Orwellian threat to free speech and decent radio can complain to the Minister of Broadcasting and Media — Willie Jackson."

~ Jo Nova, from her post 'Hiding behind teenage girls again — so they can’t be ridiculed for saying silly things'

 

Did someone say "Willy Jackson"?

"Benefits earmarked for a particular group are especially helpful for that group’s political leadership, even if these benefits are less valuable than alternative benefits the group might have obtained by alternative policies benefiting the society as a whole. Moreover, the attempt to obtain earmarked benefits may arouse far more opposition from other groups, therefore reducing the likelihood or the magnitude of such benefits, but they are still in the interest of the group’s political leaders. If the group benefits as members of the larger society, that is no feather in the cap of racial or ethnic leaders.....
    "In short, political 'solutions' tend to misconceive the basic issues. However, these misconceptions may serve the political leadership well, even if they are counterproductive for the racial or ethnic group in whose name they speak."

~ Thomas Sowell, from his book The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective [hat tip Cafe Hayek]

 

Jackson and Labour deserve other [updated]

 

I sometimes quip that the National Party is just Labour without the identity politics – and now that National has taken Labour’s soul and turned it into a three-term Government and the Greens have been outflanking it over on the hard left, it now looks like it is embracing this misbegotten mire of identity politics simply because it is all the political territory it has left.

Leader Andrew Little has begun his election year, the most important year of his political life, by courting open revolt in his party. Not to rush through important policy; nor to take a controversial stand against the government; but to select a man for a high list place in his party.

A man who has no qualifications for the role except for his lifetime role as a professional Maori.

A man who’s made a career out of his race.

Selected, because his selection plants another flag in the mire.

This is bad enough. Yet the revolt from the grassroots against Willy Jackson’s ascension is if anything worse. Those revolting are not dismayed about Willy Jackson being a no-talent blowhard nor at his lifetime of identity politics – nor even that his selection would leave no place on the list for the great talent that the party has been incubating. No, they are upset because his selection offends the teachers unions and the party’s other identitarian wings:

Four main concerns are raised [by Jackson’s opponent: His ‘abhorrent’ Roast Busters interview [three years ago], a lack of ‘courage to fight homophobia’, his advocacy for charter schools and a lack of gender balance in Labour's caucus should Mr Jackson obtain a high position on the list.

Their mire grows ever deeper.

UPDATE: Former Labour MP MAryan Street confirms it’s identity politics all the way down.

.