The purpose of the CRC Bill is to provide Ngai Tahu with the
right to appoint two non-elected members to the CRC alongside fourteen elected
members.
In many respects the constitutional issues raised are the
same as those raised by the now “paused” Rotorua District Council
(Representation Arrangements) Bill (RDC) which I wrote about on 23 June 2022 - see HERE.
That Bill was referred to the Auditor General who found that the Bill offended section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 in that it discriminated on the basis of race by giving Maori two votes whilst all other eligible New Zealanders only have one.
The CRC Bill, when enacted will do precisely the same thing.
Maori (Ngai Tahu) will be given the right to appoint two members to the CRC and
have the right to vote at an election for a candidate of their choice of any
ethnicity including Maori.
It seems that the Attorney General has relied on legal
advice provided to him dated 23 November 2021 long before his decision made on
21 April 2022 on the RDC Bill.
The key finding of the RDC report is expressed in clause 30
of the report dated 21 April 21 April 2022. It states, “This proposed
arrangement detracts from the key constitutional principle of equal
representation in a representative democracy. I consider that there must be
strong reasons to depart from this fundamental principle and, accordingly, to
justify the limit on the right to freedom from discrimination. Departures from
the Local Electoral Act may also have broader constitutional impacts and need
to be carefully considered. Arrangements like these, if replicated across other
local bodies could result in significant impacts, which may be better
considered in full by the central government and Parliament.”
CRC is a local authority just as RDC is. CRC and RDCs
governing bodies are elected to office by the eligible residents within the
local body boundaries.
Therefore if the principle of equal representation is
offended by the RDC proposal it is similarly offended by the CRC arrangement.
The CRC advice argues that in this case there is no
discrimination because Maori have a special status which is conferred upon them
by two factors:
1.
Maori are the Crown’s treaty partner, and
2.
The Crown’s duties under the Treaty of Waitangi
And therefore they conclude that there is no other group in a
comparable position and the Human Rights Act 1990 does not apply.
The advice ends with this statement, “In the context of the
provisions within this Bill no other persons or group can be considered to be
in comparable circumstances Ngai Tahu and no persons or group will be
materially disadvantaged by the passing of the Bill. The result of this
assessment is that the Bill of Rights Act is not engaged.”
In my opinion this interpretation of the scope and effect of
the Bill of Rights Act is dangerously flawed.
Both of the factors relied upon in the advice are the
subject of conjecture and uncertainty. Neither of them are contained in any
statute which has been enacted by the sovereign Parliament of New Zealand.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is an act of
Parliament and it sets out in clear terms
the prohibited grounds for discrimination by reference to section 21 of
the Human Rights Act 1993 and is covered in the RDC report of 21 April 2022.
It is demonstrably incorrect to state that no comparator group
has a special association with the region. Non Maori also have a special
association with the region just as Maori do.
Both Maori and all other eligible New Zealanders have the
inalienable right to put themselves forward as a candidate for election and to vote
by secret ballot.
The passing of the CRC Bill into law will be another nail in the coffin of our once world leading democracy. It will confer a greater right on some New Zealand citizens based on race in direct contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights.
Graeme Reeves is a lawyer and former National MP.
2 comments:
It irks me that Ngai Tahu were an invading group from Hawkes Bay into the South Island at the same time as whalers and sealers were establishing in localised ports around the NZ coastline. Ngati Mamoe also were co signatories to Ngai Tahu in June 1864 for the sale of Stewart Island (Rakiura) to the Crown. It is quite wrong for Ngai Tahu to claim rights greater than any other New Zealand resident
The Proclamantion published in the London Gazzette on the 2 October 1840 stated, "Britain claimed Sovereignty over the South Island by "Discovery", not the Treaty of Waitangi. Therefore, should Ngai Tahu be using the Treaty of Waiatngi to claim against the Crown/Taxpayer?
Ngai Tahu had sold most of their land before the Treaty was signed, but once the Treaty was signed the Government returned most of this land to Ngai Tahu without paying compensation to the purchases. I suggest the readers do their own research into how Ngai Tahu became landless before the Treaty was signed and the British Government returned their land. Over two thirds of New Zealand had been sold by the tangata Maori before the Treaty was signed with most of the legal Deeds of Sale still held in the New South Wales Supreme Court. Did you know this Mr Reeves?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.