An OIA request asking for a copy of the Principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi has been rejected by both of the above entities.
The same person has dual roles in regard to being both the Attorney General and the Minister.
The inability to provide the information has huge justice issues for the people of New Zealand being subject to law which embodies phrases requiring that ‘must give effect to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.’
Along with ‘must provide for and give effect to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ are phrases now becoming rife in the drafting of law and yet no-one seems able to provide a copy of these Principles we are so subject to.
Suggested changes to the law are to be referred to the
Minister of Justice, instead of a more independent Law Commission.
However, the Law Commission website refers any suggestions
to the Minister.
This does not provide the independent oversight one would
expect.
Further, this is a failure on the part of the Law Commission
that they did not see this as an omission in the promulgation of NZ law.
NZ Law must be accessible to all, and simple and straight forward enough not to require that the average citizen has no recourse to defend themselves when they do not have the requisite information, have no support, and have no resources – money.
REQUEST.
I now ask, as a NZ Citizen, that I be given a copy of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the interest of fairness, justice, and as my right as an affected party to the continued enforcement of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in NZ Law.
Further, please advise who defends NZ Citizens where there
is a blatant failure in the promulgation of the law, and a failure to adhere to
the Legislative Guidelines.
Does the Law Commission have the requisite independence to protect and uphold the accessibility of NZ Law to the average person in accordance with the Legislative Guidelines?
Sandra Goudie
Retired Mayor
Retired Member of Parliament.
12 comments:
Either there are no formal Principles, only a general notion which can be altered on a whim and used to support any policy you desire, or...
There are Principles, drafted by this Government, which have come straight out of He Puapua and effectively say that Maori are the chosen people and must be given, at the very least, a 50% share of everything and due deference in all things in consideration of their superior culture and knowledge.
Whichever it is, this government knows that confirming either option would reveal their duplicity, racism and disregard for non-Maori.
Good luck with getting them.
Per discussions on anonymity I am not disclosing my name but as an individual and cutoff NZ I totally support this very reasonable request. I would also like to see the basis/reasoning on which these principles were constructed.
Indeed, it potentially does have huge consequences and to have this kind of vaguery or imprecision embodied in law, without an agreed definition of these "principles" seems utterly absurd and, therefore intrinsically, bad law.
Without that definition, it seems to be little other than a ‘virtue signal’ but, of course, if one is a certain kind of lawyer, it leaves the door wide open (a veritable gravy train) for all manner of legal challenge and discussion on what those principles are, yet alone what ‘having regard’ or ‘giving effect to’ them means.
Acts of Parliament. after the "Short Title and commencement", typically begin with an "Interpretation" that defines words and phrases so there is a clarity of meaning and purpose and that ideally limits the extent of any misunderstanding.
As a lay person, it appears to me to be on a par with incorporating words from another language (like te reo) in our law, where the definition is not entirely clear nor understood by the vast majority of the population that are required to be bound by, or have regard to such law.
What is even more remarkable is that our politicians deliberately embody this uncertainty in our laws, when it seems a good proportion of them can't even recite nor agree on what precisely the Treaty says, yet alone its unstated “principles”. (Of course, this is not assisted by the fact there is more than one version of the Treaty.)
So, thank you, Sandra for raising this important issue. Do keep us informed of developments and I do hope voters ask those soon to be seeking election from them where they stand on such an important matter.
The principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as articulated by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, provide the framework for how we will meet our obligations under Te Tiriti in our day-to-day work. The 2019 Hauora report recommends the following principles for the primary health care system[4]. These principles are applicable to wider health and disability system. The principles that apply to our work are as follows.
Tino rangatiratanga: The guarantee of tino rangatiratanga, which provides for Māori self-determination and mana motuhake in the design, delivery, and monitoring of health and disability services.
Equity: The principle of equity, which requires the Crown to commit to achieving equitable health outcomes for Māori.
Active protection: The principle of active protection, which requires the Crown to act, to the fullest extent practicable, to achieve equitable health outcomes for Māori. This includes ensuring that it, its agents, and its Treaty partner are well informed on the extent, and nature, of both Māori health outcomes and efforts to achieve Māori health equity.
Options: The principle of options, which requires the Crown to provide for and properly resource kaupapa Māori health and disability services. Furthermore, the Crown is obliged to ensure that all health and disability services are provided in a culturally appropriate way that recognises and supports the expression of hauora Māori models of care.
Partnership: The principle of partnership, which requires the Crown and Māori to work in partnership in the governance, design, delivery, and monitoring of health and disability services. Māori must be co-designers, with the Crown, of the primary health system for Māori.
There are five principles:
The Principle of Government or Kawanatanga;
The Principle of Self-Management, or Rangatiratanga;
The Principle of Equality;
The Principle of Reasonable Co-operation; and
The Principle of Redress
From an 1989 address given by the man who made all this shit up, Mr G Palmer.
www7.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/vuwlawrw/1989/20.pdf
The simple reality is , along with the deluded understanding that there exists a partnership between part Māori and all other New Zealanders, is that they just don't exist.
The treaty solved several concerns at the time. Done and dusted. If Maori( whatever dilution they gave in their genes) have an issue, deal with it per one person one vote. You are lucky to be around carrying those remnant genes of a Stone Age killer culture.
anonymous@3.38 just proves what a nonsense the lack of definition is and how totally wayward these 'principles' can become. The Treaty mentions nothing of partnership, nor equity, and the entirely partisan Waitangi Tribunal should have nothing to do with it.
Interesting also that neither of the above recited definitions mentions the parties (not partners) ie. the Crown and it's subjects, should all act in the utmost good faith - something fundamental in terms of a principle, and yet which appears remarkably absent in more recent years.
Quite simply - there are no "principles" in the Treaty document itself.
The Treaty wording is clear. No principles.
The notion of "principles" is simply a work of fiction by a multitude of activists, activist politicians and judges.
All these dream land notions of "principles" fall apart when confronted by request for proof of veracity.
Refer also recent article of Bruce Moon published on this blog re Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal.
Does the unelected Waitangi Tribunal trump the elected Government of NZ and all it's citizens ?
'More than one Treaty' Peter, there is only one official Treaty. The one in the Ngapua dialect. This was translated by the Williams, father and son on the night of Feb 4/5 1840 This text had been composed by Governor Hobson the previous day with assistance from Busby and Clendon, a British subject and American Consul at his home and on his writing material with a '1833' watermark.
Refer back to Bruce Moon's article in this 'Breaking News"
I will sign my own name, too old to worry about repercussions!
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.