The first reference to the Principles of the Treaty were contained in the 1975 Act establishing the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal. But the Principles were not defined by Parliament, then or since, leaving definition to the courts and others.
To outsiders the interpretations have seemed rather expandable and that the end result would mean a serious erosion of our democracy. Hence the proposal from ACT. The advocates believe if by Parliament and endorsed by a referendum no following government would dare attempt to change them except by legislation and another referendum
My second thought based on my experience as a government relations consultant, is to be wary that any new legislation, because it could end up producing a result you don’t like. Once a bill is introduced in Parliament ACT would lose control of it, as amendments could be made that it doesn’t like. What does ACT do then? Vote against it?
The reality is the same courts and others, who have taken an expansive view of the Treaty Principles, would also have to deal with the new legislation, and could thus interpret a new Act in a way not intended.
I regard Geoffrey Palmer, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, John Key and Chris Finlayson, as all seriously smart, good New Zealanders, who have done their best to improve the lot of Maori and partially redress some of the injustices since 1840.
However, in my view, all were naive about human nature and where the course they embarked on might lead. That course raised expectations about “co-governance”, which could ultimately result in New Zealand becoming a former democracy. See independent Maori constitutional report – Matike Mai Aotearoa.
In a Listener article (February 18, 2023) Chris Finlayson about co-governance, Chris Finlayson referred to his Marine and Coastal Area Act and said: “The law passed and its tests are being routinely ignored by the courts, but that is an issue for another day.”
Clearly if the courts won’t interpret the Marine and Coastal Act in the way Finlayson and Parliament intended, then Parliament has only two options – accept an outcome in respect of Maori customary title it does not agree with, or, change the act. This is not an abstract issue but clearly would be more than controversial.
Barrie Saunders has a background in Government Relations and blogs at www.barriesaunders.wordpress.com. - where this article was sourced.
My second thought based on my experience as a government relations consultant, is to be wary that any new legislation, because it could end up producing a result you don’t like. Once a bill is introduced in Parliament ACT would lose control of it, as amendments could be made that it doesn’t like. What does ACT do then? Vote against it?
The reality is the same courts and others, who have taken an expansive view of the Treaty Principles, would also have to deal with the new legislation, and could thus interpret a new Act in a way not intended.
I regard Geoffrey Palmer, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, John Key and Chris Finlayson, as all seriously smart, good New Zealanders, who have done their best to improve the lot of Maori and partially redress some of the injustices since 1840.
However, in my view, all were naive about human nature and where the course they embarked on might lead. That course raised expectations about “co-governance”, which could ultimately result in New Zealand becoming a former democracy. See independent Maori constitutional report – Matike Mai Aotearoa.
In a Listener article (February 18, 2023) Chris Finlayson about co-governance, Chris Finlayson referred to his Marine and Coastal Area Act and said: “The law passed and its tests are being routinely ignored by the courts, but that is an issue for another day.”
Clearly if the courts won’t interpret the Marine and Coastal Act in the way Finlayson and Parliament intended, then Parliament has only two options – accept an outcome in respect of Maori customary title it does not agree with, or, change the act. This is not an abstract issue but clearly would be more than controversial.
Barrie Saunders has a background in Government Relations and blogs at www.barriesaunders.wordpress.com. - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
"I regard Geoffrey Palmer, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, John Key and Chris Finlayson, as all seriously smart, good New Zealanders, who have done their best to improve the lot of Maori and partially redress some of the injustices since 1840"
Well Barrie I don't agree with your above conclusion. IMO, they knew exactly what they were doing and it has destroyed race relations in New Zealand forever.(And they all got rewarded for it??)
In "doing their best with taxpayers money to improve the lot of Maori" which in itself is apartheid, just set the stage for the radical HE Puapua 2040 agenda to come to light. Tribalism verses Democracy, using CO-GOVERNANCE as the soft sell.
Was this working in the best interests for ALL New Zealanders Barrie?
Barrie , I believe ACT would have complete support of the public if all the Maori gravy train issues were all included in the Principles Bill and enacted by Parliament . Including Sea bed and Fore shore , Maori parliamentary seats , Maori tribe charity status , Waitangi in all its various meanings and then be able to fully instigate democracy , one person , one vote , NO provision for ethnicity.
Mr Luxon would then be able to thank ACT and NZF for their courage to govern that he has misplaced.
Have you read John Porter’s post today on this blog?
Well, Barrie, it's already controversial and divisive and clearly our politicians and activist judiciary have let us all down. It's overdue that the public now had the opportunity to have their say - after all, it's they that are ultimately paying for it.
how about a new bill that is simple and says:
'there are no principles. the treaty is written. that's it'
i'm sure it would be enough to cause a meltdown :)
i think Helen clark had maori sussed, but sadly only later in her career. She chose Horomia as maori Minister instead of some firebrand. She saw typical maori ingratitude when Turiana whom she had carefully nurtured, jump ship. Maoridom does not care a toss for all those who got them where they are; Doug Graham et al.
Surely there is a third option: The Government can replace the Judiciary with people who will enforce the law as it is written.
The problem is, we have no codified Constitution, allowing the Executive, Legislative & Judicial muppets in Wellington to cherry pick their laws from an ever increasing list of legislation that nobody wants, plus a bunch of "founding documents" that are well past their use by date. Even our Bill of Rights is a joke as it does not protect our 3 most important inalienable rights, privacy, property rights & the right to self defence. Shameful...
Tinman - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts Andy. So obvious in the Court of Appeal bench. As long as Maori and woke propoganda is pumped into the system without management the system including the courts, is broken.
Post a Comment