Bill’s contract principles voted after widespread indignation

The controversial bill seeking to rethink the founding document of New Zealand, which established Maori’s rights and non-marriages in the country, was defeated in the second reading.

The bill on contracts was recognized for 112 votes to 11 days after the government committee recommended that it did not continue.

The proposed legislation sought to legally identify the principles of the Wautangi Treaty in 1840, causing extensive indignation that saw More than 40,000 people take part in protest Outside the parliament last year.

Law The main political parties sought to vote.

The members of the Right Party ACT, which made it, were the only deputies who voted for it in the second reading on Thursday. ACT leader David Seymour has promised to continue campaigning on this issue.

“I believe that this bill or something similar will be held in one day because there are no good arguments against its content,” he wrote on social media.

In November, the tensions in the parliament were high during the discussion on the eve of the vote. He ordered the deputy of the work of Willy Jackson to leave, refusing to recall the comment he made, calling the Seymur “liar”.

Work leader Chris Hippins said Start khaki in parliament on the first reading of the bill – He said he was “destroyed”.

“Instead of dividing and conquering, this bill has closed and united communities throughout the Mota (country) in solidarity for our founding agreement and what it is,” the Green Marama Davidson party said in a statement.

The second reading happened after the elected committee, which considered the proposed legislation, published the final report – indicating that it made more than 300,000 materials, the vast majority of which opposed.

This is the greatest response to the proposed legislation that the New Zealand has never received the Parliament.

While the principles of the contract have never been determined in law, its basic values Over time, they were woven into different legislation, seeking to offer Maori to restore the wrong during colonization.

The proposed law of the law had three basic principles: in the fact that the government of New Zealand has the right to govern and to pass laws; that the crown would respect Maor’s rights at a time when the contract was signed; And that everyone is equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection.

The party stated that the bill would not change the contract itself, but “continued the process of determining the principles of the contract.” They believe that this will help create equality for all New Zealanders and improve social cohesion.

Among those who supported, Richardson, the former Finance Minister of the National Central Law Party, who stated to the election committee that the proposed legislation “was” a bill that came “, were among those who supported.

She claimed that although the treaty itself could not be disputed, the idea of ​​its principles was “relatively modern”, and that these principles were still largely defined by the courts, not by parliament.

“The New Zealand has a new imperative on the cultural front, the need to resolve and correction of contracts, which are increasingly becoming wayward and wrong,” she said.

The opponents of the bill, meanwhile, believe that this will harm Maori and create large social divisions.

Sharon Howk, the daughter of the late activist Maori and MP Joe Hawka, made the elected committee on behalf of the Ngātua ōrākei Hapū (support) – telling that the legislation “deprives the fabric where we have been going on in the last three decades.

She added that the bill “polluted” the idea that all New Zealanders have the future together.

“We will still have a confrontation with this,” she said.

The key issues identified by the members of the public who submitted statements to the election committee contained that it was contrary to the values ​​of the contract, and that he contributed to equality with his own capital – not considering social disparities, such as those created by the legacy of colonization.

There was also concern about the extent to which the bill complied with international law, and whether it would adversely affect the reputation of New Zealand at the international level.

Meanwhile, which supported the bill, they referred to the current lack of clarity and certainty in relation to the principles of the contract and the importance of equality for all.

They also said it was important to hold a referendum to facilitate a national conversation around the contract – what David Seymour thinks it is still necessary.

The principles of the Treaty Bill adopted the first reading in November with the support of the national – the dominant party in the ruling coalition of New Zealand – who promised to reinforce it within the coalition agreement with the law, but not further.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxan, who is also the leader of the National Party, previously said that the bill did not like anything. He was not in the parliament for the second reading, but earlier he noticed that it was time to move from him.