Why are women's rights placed above men's? Men have problems, such as higher rates of suicide, imprisonment and homelessness. We also have lower rates of university graduation. If you claim to want evidence based policy, where is your consideration of men's rights? Why do women have a department of government looking out for their issues, but men don't?
I do agree with most of your policy, apart from the emphasis you place on 'honour the treaty'. Leaving aside the 50-50 split you claim the treaty promises, after the signing things have changed. If say we now have a 20% Asian population, then you still want 50% for the Maori, leaving 30% for the non-Asians and 20% for the Asians. Double the population by immigration, and the existing non-Asians are left with 15%, while the Maori still hae 50%. The maths don't work
All futurists say that we will no longer have elected governments or parliaments. They cost too much money and are not at all effective. In New Zealand we have a population of 4 million people yet we are over represented, and under serviced by a group of too many people who do not actually have any qualifications to run a country. A country is not a business. It requires governance not management. It requires fairness and the maintenance of equal distribution and equitable and comfortable and happy lifestyles for it's citizens. We actually only need a panel of 15 highly qualified people deemed to have a long track record of ethical behaviour and successful results in their specified field selected in the manner of High Court Judges. This will happen start preparing it for it now.
Everything is mostly working fine but too many laws are being passed under urgency. Urgency should only be used in exceptional circumstances. It undermines the democratic process by skipping the Select Committee stage, where the public actually get to have a say.
In 2011 the Law Foundation recommended that the Speaker should have a role in authorising any use of Urgency that would eliminate the select committee stage of a bill’s passage. This was rejected by the Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee.
I believe that an upper house will only hinder the New Zealand government, we are not in the situation in which we need one and furthermore I believe that having one would be detrimental, making it harder to introduce change in addition to complication our system
We have no need for a written constitution, and it will do nothing but limit our grandchildren's options. Constitutions are notoriously difficult to change (see American right to bear arms) even when they are demonstrably harmful to a modern society , and many of the things we take for granted (equality of gender, sexual preference, race, abortion choice etc. under the law) would have been excluded from/banned by a constitution written only 2 generations ago. All things change; morals, ethics, religions, yet constitutions have an inertia all of their own. Do not force our grandchildren to obey a set of outdated, irrelevant and in no doubt harmful rules when their time comes round.
I would assume that as TOP is all about fairness there would be a review into the charitable tax free status of Ngai Tahu. Is it considered to be fair that Ngai Tahu is able to generate a $169M surplus after the iwi dividend on which no tax is paid? No other limited liability company is able to operate in this manner. Surely out of fairness and equality the undistributed profits should be taxed.
To have a future promoting apartheid is like turning back the clock two centuries ago. It causes racism and division and will always do so while we keep looking backwards to a document written 170 years ago and trying to make it fit in the 21st. century. Ive heard hundreds of interpretations of what the treaty means to different people and from my view point its irrelevant. They all think theyre right and its like arguing over which religion is correct. Its become part of the new religion of political correctness and will mean continued racism into the future. What drives me crazy and is completely illogical is that anyone who argues against 'the Treaty' you are labeled a racist when you are trying to argue against it.
For me a written constitution should be based on logic and reason. The cornerstone of any civilised society is that everyone has equal standing. Having different rules for people with different dna is a poor foundation for any constitution and a recipe for stupidity.
The money spent now on the treaty and the bureaucracy costs in the future would be better spent on the poor many of whom are Maori.
The argument that if we 'honour' the Treaty poor Maori stats will improve is weak. Weve been honouring the Treaty for 30 years in which Maori stats have gotten worse. Lets just invest in the poor and well all have better lives.
Unfortunately this piece of TOP policy goes against my belief system. I guess Id like to know the hierarchy of policy will work because if this was a bottom line or top policy being pushed by TOP I will look elsewhere to place my vote.
The two parts of the Treaty are incompatable,
Equal rights for all Kiwis - GREAT - we need this
Maori (meaning Maori society) has the right to rangatiratanga (self determination), and has autonomous authority over all unsold natural resources and taonga (intangible cultural assets).
This gives Maori rights that the rest of us DO NOT HAVE and as such is totality incompatible with our equal rights!!
NO! NO! NO!
I do agree about making the Maori language and culture compulsory in all NZ schools - that is a good idea