With the Parliamentary Select Committee process on David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill not far from starting, we should look carefully at a policy from the Solicitor-General’s office dated October 1.
Remember that Seymour’s proposed third principle, based on Article Three of the Treaty itself, says “all New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties.”
What could be so difficult about that? The same rights and duties for all citizens and residents of a nation is surely the basis of a modern and liberal democratic society.
But on October 1st the Solicitor General released what can only be interpreted as the middle finger to a government that was elected promising to remove special rights for any one particular group of New Zealanders. From what I can ascertain, there has been little or no follow-up or analysis of Una Jagose’s The Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines.
It starts off well enough.
The goal remains to ensure New Zealand continues to benefit from prosecution processes which are underscored by the core values of transparency, equality and fair application of the law to all participants, and reflect the legitimate public interest in prosecuting criminal offending.
So far so good.
But then this.
It is well documented that the criminal justice system delivers disproportionately adverse results for Māori, who are over represented as both defendants and victims.
The guidelines ask prosecutors to think carefully about particular decisions where a person (either the defendant or victim) is Māori, or a member of any other group that is disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system.
It goes on.
Being Māori could correlate with deprivation or trauma that may be relevant to a specific decision although that does not mean that decision must be made in a particular way. The guidelines refer to Māori specifically because they are tangata whenua to whom the Crown has obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This reflects the Crown’s duties under the Treaty/Te Tiriti.
At least there’s a bit of an out towards the end of the S-G’s introduction.
Prosecutors, and the guidelines themselves, form one part of the overall criminal justice system; they cannot direct other participants (such as investigators, defence counsel and judges how to behave. Nevertheless, the decision to prosecute as the doorway into the criminal justice system is a critical decision point.
The basic tenet of the guidelines, and there’s a press release and 208 pages of guidelines, is that prosecutors should tread carefully when a case involves Māori.
There’s even a quote from our Supreme Court.
The experience of Māori is unique: no community in this country was deprived of its autonomy, internal cohesion and economic resilience in quite the way Māori communities were. One of the effects of that experience has been consistently disproportionate rates of Māori offending. That is why judges need to know about it.
You can see the problems here. The country’s highest ranking legal official is essentially saying that if you’re Māori and you’ve committed a crime there’s every chance your prosecution might not proceed.
The definition of racism is privilege for one ethnicity at the expense of another. If this policy is not suggesting legal privilege to Māori, I don’t know what does.
We all know of the allegorical personification of Lady Justice. She has scales and a blindfold. In other words she must weigh up the evidence from both sides of a case and then dispenses her decision without regard to wealth, power or other status – like membership of a certain ethnicity.
It’s a publication such as this from the Solicitor-General which makes discussion of the Treaty Principles Bill even more important, stressing more than ever the relevance of Seymour’s Principle Three.
Remember it reads: “ALL New Zealanders have the SAME rights and duties.”
Who could possibly argue against that?
The Solicitor-General seems hell-bent on doing so.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
What could be so difficult about that? The same rights and duties for all citizens and residents of a nation is surely the basis of a modern and liberal democratic society.
But on October 1st the Solicitor General released what can only be interpreted as the middle finger to a government that was elected promising to remove special rights for any one particular group of New Zealanders. From what I can ascertain, there has been little or no follow-up or analysis of Una Jagose’s The Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines.
It starts off well enough.
The goal remains to ensure New Zealand continues to benefit from prosecution processes which are underscored by the core values of transparency, equality and fair application of the law to all participants, and reflect the legitimate public interest in prosecuting criminal offending.
So far so good.
But then this.
It is well documented that the criminal justice system delivers disproportionately adverse results for Māori, who are over represented as both defendants and victims.
The guidelines ask prosecutors to think carefully about particular decisions where a person (either the defendant or victim) is Māori, or a member of any other group that is disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system.
It goes on.
Being Māori could correlate with deprivation or trauma that may be relevant to a specific decision although that does not mean that decision must be made in a particular way. The guidelines refer to Māori specifically because they are tangata whenua to whom the Crown has obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This reflects the Crown’s duties under the Treaty/Te Tiriti.
At least there’s a bit of an out towards the end of the S-G’s introduction.
Prosecutors, and the guidelines themselves, form one part of the overall criminal justice system; they cannot direct other participants (such as investigators, defence counsel and judges how to behave. Nevertheless, the decision to prosecute as the doorway into the criminal justice system is a critical decision point.
The basic tenet of the guidelines, and there’s a press release and 208 pages of guidelines, is that prosecutors should tread carefully when a case involves Māori.
There’s even a quote from our Supreme Court.
The experience of Māori is unique: no community in this country was deprived of its autonomy, internal cohesion and economic resilience in quite the way Māori communities were. One of the effects of that experience has been consistently disproportionate rates of Māori offending. That is why judges need to know about it.
You can see the problems here. The country’s highest ranking legal official is essentially saying that if you’re Māori and you’ve committed a crime there’s every chance your prosecution might not proceed.
The definition of racism is privilege for one ethnicity at the expense of another. If this policy is not suggesting legal privilege to Māori, I don’t know what does.
We all know of the allegorical personification of Lady Justice. She has scales and a blindfold. In other words she must weigh up the evidence from both sides of a case and then dispenses her decision without regard to wealth, power or other status – like membership of a certain ethnicity.
It’s a publication such as this from the Solicitor-General which makes discussion of the Treaty Principles Bill even more important, stressing more than ever the relevance of Seymour’s Principle Three.
Remember it reads: “ALL New Zealanders have the SAME rights and duties.”
Who could possibly argue against that?
The Solicitor-General seems hell-bent on doing so.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
Doesn’t this contradict both Coalition Agreements and the promises the Government has made to end apartheid policies?
And here’s me thinking Parliament has “unlimited sovereign power”. Must only be at their pleasure?
We'll all just have to identify as "part Maori" then.
Immediate request for clarification from the Justice Minister, o the Attorney General and Minister for the Courts that the Solicitor General should clarify her remarks.
Equality - not equity - is the wording of the Treaty. Equity is the interpretation of the Treaty by the pro-Maori faction.
ACT's Bill will now face great problems as the Cabinet-approved text is overtly contradictory regarding principles 2 and 3.
As a young white youth growing up with other disadvantaged children not just maori.Even tho I was in the top ten in class at college.i was removed from the academic class stopping my access to a higher education,”become an airplane pilot “I was put in the lowest academic class all German no tech drawing , no engineering,or metal work..as I came from a single parent family “a higher education would be waisted on me as they decided I couldn’t afford University..ATC air training came up with same idea..my sickness benefit was stopped because of my associates being maori..
This raises a number of issues. One is that if you want to identify the sector of society most represented in the criminal justice system and the prisons, who clearly receive longer sentences than anyone else for the same crime and who the Police openly target, then that would be men. Are men likely to receive positive discrimination? Of course not because it isn't woke to do so, like it is for Maori.
The other concern us that when Maori make one of their claims for compensation, land, title to the seabed or whatever else they want (without having to work for it) the public rely on Crown Law and the Solicitor General to put the other side to the court or Tribunal. To represent the public interest. It is difficult to see strong advocacy for the public interest from someone with this solicitor general's views on Maori getting unequal entitlements.
How can someone hold such an office and be so fundamentally wrong? Apart from the more obvious undermining of the core tenets of justice, she is also wrong to call Maori "tangata whenua." They were never that, and the unmandated signing of UNDRIP doesn't make them so. Even Te Tiriti, itself, doesn't recognise them as such - only as "tangata maori."
We voted for change! Replace the bureaucrats who aren’t with the democratic vote. Why is the coalition dragging its heals?
This Solicitor General should be sacked, for deliberately going against the Government guidelines and undermining their wishes. No wonder the Judiciary in general are becoming so soft in their application of the law, given the SG's views. This directive of hers should have made headlines in MSM, but this forum is the first to say anything. Just adds grist to the mill for all the radicals in this country. How can anyone , especially in her position, be so taken in. That is truly unsettling
This sort of comment would have been acceptable in the nineteenth century, but in the twenty-first?? The SG might not have realized, that times have changed over the last 120 years. What time capsule has she just out of?
Let's just take this quote:- "It is well documented that the criminal justice system delivers disproportionately adverse results for Māori, who are over represented as both defendants and victims."
NO !! It is not the justice system that commits the crimes. It is the offenders who commit the crime and get "adverse results".
Well said, Anon. I agree completely.
Post a Comment