Mr Prime Minister: Lead, Goddammit. Address the Nation in this time of Crisis. Tell us: Are there Treaty Principles? If so, are they part of NZ's Constitution?

An extraordinary exchange took place on The Platform Radio Station between host Sean Plunket and Deputy PM Winston Peters, who said there's no such thing as Treaty Principles. However, Labour and Greens not only believe there are Principles, but they form part of the "constitutional framework of this nation", to quote MP Willie Jackson. As for NZ's legal profession, it has entered the political fray, in the form of the Kings Counsels, siding with Labour. ACT also believes there are Principles, but they've been confusingly concocted by politically activist judges, so must be clarified by legislation. Is someone missing from this list? The Prime Minister. Platform host Plunket told his audience that since becoming PM, Luxon has declined to be interviewed by him. That's like Trump turning down Fox News, since The Platform is right-wing. Most incredibly, Plunket said he had no idea whether the PM accepted that Treaty Principles exist, or not, let alone their status in NZ law.

Since Main Stream Media journos can't do interviews anymore - they shout at our leaders and want to tell us how to think - lets ask our own questions to the PM. First: "Deputy PM Peters says there's no such thing as Treaty Principles. Your next Deputy PM Seymour says there are Principles but they need to be clarified in legislation. Labour and Kings Counsels also say there are Principles & they like the existing ones. What's your position?" Second: "If you do believe there are Principles, what's their legal status? Are they part of NZ's constitutional framework, as asserted by Labour & Kings Counsel? If so, are they enshrined & settled to the extent they cannot now be altered by Parliament?"

If our PM is not able to address the nation in this time of economic & political crisis, and answer these questions, then he's consigning NZ to uncertainty, division, acrimony and stagnation, since this is no side issue. For the sake of Kiwis of all ethnicities, can the PM tell us where we stand before the law? The status of the Principles, which our legal profession says include "equitable outcomes", will determine whether NZ becomes poor, but where people are equally poor, or prosperous, but where some prosper more than others. Some folks prefer the former; others the latter. Who's to judge? We're just asking the PM to tell us which road NZ is going down, so we can decide whether to leave, depending on our own preferences. I suspect we already know what he will say: "I'm not sure. The answers are being developed - they've been developing over these past 180 years and will continue to be developed". That answer will sink the country.

Sources:

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20241114_20241114_40

Its Official: The Royal Society of NZ's Race-Based Funding is a constitutional requirement.

ACTs Treaty Principles debate has clarified a lot of things we never understood before in New Zealand. For example, Kiwi Blog report, "Taxpayers are funding 20 Future Leader Fellowships. Each one is worth over $800,000 so [that's] $16 million from taxpayers. MBIE has delegated decisions on who gets them to the Royal Society of NZ. Their criteria are:

• At least 20% must go to researchers who are Māori

• At least 10% must identify as Pacific ethnicity

• At least 50% must go to researchers who identify as female"

David Farrar, pollster for the Nats & owner of Kiwi Blog, says this is "identity politics" so its "Time for the Government to act!" But the Nats can't act. The Royal Society is not playing identity politics. Its abiding by NZ's constitutional framework, as newly outlined by our Kings Counsels in their letter to the PM. They state, "This [Treaty] principle recognizes the Crown’s obligation to treat Māori equitably with other groups & to achieve equitable outcomes". They declare the principle to be part of NZ's "constitutional arrangements".

Consequently, the Royal Society is abiding by the most basic, fundamental legal imperatives of the nation, according to our law profession. "Equitable outcomes", which form part of them, is an extremely strong requirement. The use of the word "outcomes" means it is an unambiguous necessity for the Society to reserve at least 20% of their Fellowships to Māori since Māori make up around 20% of the population - and outcomes, such as who wins fellowships, must be in the same proportion.

However, our judiciary have no clue of the effect on jobs and livelihoods of their philosophizing. Most economists prefer the aim of "equal opportunities", which would mean ensuring different people have similar opportunities to apply for fellowships. That aim may justify out-reach programs for the disadvantaged & provision of support to help them send an application. All applications would then be assessed on merit. But NZ's law profession has ruled that our Royal Society - any organization in NZ for that matter - is heavily constrained as to the degree to which decisions can be made on meritocratic grounds - since merit leads to different outcomes for different people and groups.

Should the PM, on reading Kiwi Blog's advice, tell the Society to stop race-based funding, the Society is obliged to refuse. Why? Its following not only the law - but constitutional law. The PM, in declaring he will kill ACT's Principle's Bill, stated on national TV such matters must be decided "issue by issue". That means should he ask the Society to stop & it refuses, the only way to resolve things is to take this "issue" to Court. Who'd win? The Society. It would invoke our "constitutional arrangements" that include a requirement of "equitable outcomes". NZ's lawyers must love the PM for saying all decisions in the nation must now be decided issue by issue with regard to their implementation of The Principles. That means endless court cases, litigation & NZ bankrupting as productivity goes to zero. The only winners are lawyers for whom every contentious "issue" means litigation, money & fees.

Sources: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/11/royal_society_tells_asian_and_european_male_researchers_to_stuff_off.html

https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/funds-and-opportunities/tawhia-te-mana/mana-tuapapa/information-for-applicants/

https://www.chrislynchmedia.com/news-items/kings-counsel-call-on-government-to-withdraw-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-citing-constitutional-concerns/