MEMBERS of the so-called Te Pati Maori (Maori Party) of the New Zealand Parliament have been suspended for three weeks without pay, as punishment for their uncalled-for haka performed during a vote in the House last November 24th.
The performance was supposedly to intimidate the current coalition government for proposing a Bill to clarify the country’s historic Treaty of Waitangi, in which most of the former tribal chiefs of colonial New Zealand ceded sovereignty to the Crown of England in 1840.
The Parliament’s Privileges Committee found three members of the Maori Party committed contempt of the House. The question of privilege was not on the performance of the haka itself, but the “time and manner in which it was performed.”
As it turns out, the Treaty Principles Bill, which was put up by the ruling coalition’s libertarian ACT Party and supported by coalition partner NZ First, is opposed by the gutless turncoat globalist Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.
A six-month consultation process is now underway through the select committee on the bill and thousands of New Zealanders are expected to make submissions.
The reason for the Bill was very clear: Over decades, activist lawyers and judges, acting in concert with neo-Marxist Maori radicals, have gradually recast the treaty as a “partnership”, aligning with the UNDRIP (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) principles of “co-governance”, i.e. two government systems – one “colonial” and one indigenous. In other words, an apartheid-style system.
This is the same idea behind the Aboriginal radicals’ call for “A Voice to Parliament”, the divisive system rejected by the Australian people in a referendum last year.
The Maori Party rabble have stated quite openly that they don’t respect the current parliamentary system and would quite happily overthrow it – but for what? The first race-based UNDRIP regime in the world?
“Te Pati Maori” typically act like attention-seeking spoilt brats, frequently speaking in “Te Reo” i.e. the native tongue in the Parliament as if it should be the norm. On another level they are disruptive Maoist revolutionaries agitating to divide and conquer the nation.
They play the racial identity politics game to the maximum, constantly throwing jibes at “the system” that on one hand they claim oppresses “their people” but on the other hand gives them a growing list of special financial and land ownership privileges not enjoyed by other New Zealanders.
The fact that the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon disowned the Treaty Principles Bill has shocked New Zealanders who saw his as some sort of moderate conservative alternative to the radical leftie Jacinda Ardern and her Labor Party.
Members of Hobson’s Choice, an organisation dedicated to upholding national unity under the original Treaty principles, are alarmed by Luxon’s rejection of the Bill, which ineffect means he rejects the principle of equality before the law.
“We have big problems if our Prime Minister opposes equality before the law and human rights. What kind of tyrant is he?” says Hobson’s Choice spokesman Elliot Ikilei.
He was referring to Principle Three of the Bill: (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.
But Luxon, to the delight of the Maori Party radicals he is apparently afraid of, also opposes the other two main principles laid out in the bill, namely:
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; and
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.
Mr Ikilei wonders whether the government will even bother to read the submissions on the bill. “Christopher Luxon has repeatedly said that nothing will change his mind on the bill. Frankly, his casual refusal to listen to the views of New Zealanders is rude,” he says.
