Robert MacCulloch
Robert MacCulloch is a native of New Zealand and worked at the Reserve Bank of NZ before he travelled to the UK to complete a PhD in Economics at Oxford University.
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 King’s 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 mainstream 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 King’s Counsels also say there are principles and 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 and King’s Counsel? If so, are they enshrined and 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 and 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.
Source:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20241114_20241114_40
This article was originally published by Down to Earth Kiwi.
