Dear Friend,

First and foremost, Happy New Year!  I hope you had a relaxing break. We’re all back at work, as of today.

I’ve had a large number of emails over the summer asking whether the Taxpayers’ Union will be taking a position on ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill and/or making a submission tool website.

Submissions on the Bill close tonight via the website.  I’m emailing you to explain our position and let you know how to make a submission on the Bill should you wish to.

Our position

Here at the Taxpayers’ Union, we’re unashamedly democrats – in the sense that we believe that those spending taxpayers’ money or making public policy decisions should ultimately be accountable at the ballot box. That is why we fight so hard against unelected appointments to councils, so-called ‘co-governance’ and other measures that weaken democratic accountability.

But it’s not clear how ACT’s Bill properly fits within our mission of Lower Taxes, Less Waste, More Accountability.

I’ve seen taxpayer groups overseas suffer from ‘mission creep’ – where strong views by board members or staff see an organisation’s broad support undermined by advocating on non-core issues.  That is why, as an organisation we’re not taking a formal position, nor spending supporters' money on this issue.

And reasonable minds can (and do!) differ on whether David Seymour’s approach is best. 

Those in favour…

For my part, I personally support the Bill. I think only a referendum will be enough to snuff out what I personally consider outlandish judicial activism and re-interpretations of the Treaty, sometimes contrary the document’s clear language and the historical record. I was very persuaded by Ewen McQueen’s excellent book,  One Sun in the Sky, which looks at the historical evidence for how the Treaty was understood by Māori and Pākehā both at the time it was signed in 1840, and for the century which followed. For so much of the contemporary claims made about the Treaty, McQueen’s book exposes that the Emperor has no clothes.

Our Acting Chair, Ruth Richardson has done an outstanding personal submission in favour of the Bill (in her capacity as a former Minister). Ruth argues that it is absolutely right for Parliament (as opposed to the Courts) to define what the Principles are. If Parliament is to pass dozens of laws referring to the Principles, Ruth says that it should provide certainty on what it means in doing so. You can read Ruth’s personal submission here (6 pages).

Our Co-founder, David Farrar, has also personally submitted in favour of the Bill (it’s a pithy, one-page submission, available here). David’s view is that it would be better to have an imperfect legislative definition of the Principles that he only 75% agrees with, than no legislative definition at all.

Those against…

On the other hand, former Taxpayers’ Union Chairs, Barrie Saunders, and Casey Costello prefer the NZ First approach of removing references to the Treaty / Treaty principles from legislation, and looking at issues as they arise on a case-by-case basis.

Barrie and Casey are concerned that the Treaty Principles Bill may serve to elevate or entrench the position of Treaty principles.

Casey’s raison d'etre for getting involved in politics was her fears about racial division.  Her concerns about New Zealand’s path toward anti-democratic ‘co-governance’, policies based on critical race theory and modern Treaty activism were what motivated her to co-lead Hobson’s Pledge, prior to standing/getting into Parliament.

How to have your say…

As you can see Friend, reasonable minds can (and do) differ.

But whatever your take, I strongly encourage you to take 5 minutes today or tomorrow to have your say.  You can make a submission via Parliament’s website (this is the method preferred by the Select Committee) or by using ACT’s submission website here, or Hobson’s Pledge’s submission tool here.

Have a great week.

Jordan Williams Executive Director New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union