While the review came out of a NZ First policy, the work is being led by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, who told Newsroom there was “a habit of forming, of just throwing in a Treaty reference – a very broad one – in every piece of legislation that was coming along without much thought as to what the actual consequences of that would be or wouldn’t be”.
During the past three decades, Parliament had not always been clear about what specific Treaty provisions meant or were trying to achieve, Goldsmith said.
“That’s left the courts, and the agencies themselves, and businesses and local councils all to free-range as to what it does mean and doesn’t mean.
“And that’s created uncertainty, and frankly some outcomes that need some revision,” he said.
“We’re trying to honour Treaty commitments, while at the same time, never losing sight of the basic expectations of people living in a modern, democratic society, primarily to be treated equally and to have equality before the law.”
Goldsmith said reconciling those two things was where the challenge lay.
He talked about making Treaty provisions more consistent, clearer and more specific. But this review was likely to lead to some of these clauses being removed from legislation – both retrospectively and when new bills came before Parliament.
Good to see the Government focused on removing ambiguity. This is an area that needs clarity.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
6 comments:
It beats me that so many MPs failed to question the woolly Treaty mentions. Were most too embarassed to admit their doubts and so be accused of non understanding and /or of an anti maori attitude, thereby risking devastating cancellation? With such positive souls as Finlayson, others do not feel feel comfident to express doubt.
I remember bitterly complaining to my father when Winston Peters installed the Ardern-led Government. He pointed out that I was looking at it the wrong way and that this was good for my business. Labour Governments always overspend, don't watch costs, and invariably pay top dollar for everything. And so it came to pass.
It beggars belief that Parliament (the Govt) can legislate provisions that they entirely fail to comprehend. But what a downstream gift for the legal profession.
“We’re trying to honour Treaty commitments?"
What treaty commitments? The one for ALL NZ's you mean?
Or the APARTHEID one?
Exactly - this action is now built on a highly contested document.
It is a "Treaty" in name only. It didn't meet the definition of a Treaty. ie "An agreement between Sovereign Nations." Hard to call five hundred warring, disfunctional tribes with no representative leader a "Sovereign Nation"!! It was only an agreement between the British Crown and 500+ Maori Chiefs, all of whom are now deceased. My ancestors made agreements too, but I don't have a legal right to
enforce or benefit from them now . So why do Maori think they have a legal right to reinterperate the TOW as they see fit
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.