Ele Ludemann: Treaty references omitted

The government is omitting general Treaty references from legislation :

The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last Government in a bid to get greater coherence in the public service on Treaty matters. . .

The work and advice from the TPOG obtained by the Herald under the Official Information Act may be of value to the New Zealand First-driven review of existing Treaty principles in legislation later this term.

But what will be left of any new Treaty clauses to monitor is an open question because of a radical direction the coalition Government is taking already, ahead of the review. . .

A sensible move from the government committed to reversing the divisiveness fostered by the previous one.

But leaving out a general Treaty clause is not a one-off, says New Zealand First’s Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, who helped Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop to produce the bill. There will be no more general Treaty clauses in any new legislation, Jones said. . .

The decision is clearly a political backlash against cumulative court decisions on Treaty-related issues and the introduction of a plethora of new and varied clauses in recent years.

“A generic ill-defined clause would have fed years of litigation and for those reasons we were not prepared to support a generic clause,” Jones told the Herald.

It was consistent with the coalition agreement to uphold the individual settlements and what rights of engagement those settlements might entail “but that’s where it ends”, Jones said. . .

“We are not willing to perpetuate the situation where environmental legislation is a platform to argue all manner of constitutional/indigenous rights doctrinaire ambitions.”

Jones said he had been advised the court would be more than likely to read the Treaty back into legislation of the future even if there was no general reference to it.

“But that is a different matter as to who ultimately holds power over these issues. Is it the court system or the parliamentary system?

“We realise that the individual settlement entities have a distinctive standing by dint of the full and final settlements, but recognising that standing is quite different than embedding into legislation an ill-defined, limitless Treaty clause.” . .

Honouring the full and final Treaty settlements is ethically and legally necessary and right. Inserting ill-defined and limitless clauses into legislation is neither necessary nor right.

“We are traditional Westminister parliamentarians. Sovereignty rests with Parliament and we want to avoid a situation on Treaty matters where the rule of law is replaced by the rule of lawyers. We want the former, not the latter,” Jones said.

In democracies we can vote politicians out who enact laws we don’t support. We have no power over lawyers which is why legislation must uphold the rule of law not gift ruling to lawyers.

Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.