Its the strangest thing. In the past weeks, the PM, Attorney General & Justice Minister have unambiguously signed up to the First, Second and Third Principles in ACT's Treaty Principles Bill. During Question Time in Parliament, Luxon declared, "The Crown is Sovereign". That is simply repeating ACT's First Principle.
Then Justice Minister Goldsmith stated that "over the past several decades, Parliament has not been clear about what specific Treaty provisions meant .. That’s left courts, agencies .. and councils to free-range what it means .. creating uncertainty .. we’re trying to honor Treaty commitments, while at the same time, never losing sight of the basic expectations of people .. to have equality before the law.” But that is a simple repetition of ACT's Second Principle. It "respects and protects" the rights that iwi had when they signed the Treaty, agreeing for them to be specified in legislation and settlements, whilst not losing sight of the need for everyone to be equal before the law.
Then, arising from the "prosecution guidelines" controversy whereby the Solicitor General instructed prosecutors to consider the defendant's & victim's race before deciding whether to lay charges, Attorney General Judith Collins intervened. She stated "The law needs to be blind as to people’s ethnicity or who they are .. I do not agree people should be treated differently based on their ethnicity”. The Solicitor General withdrew the guidelines. As for the Attorney General, she is simply repeating ACT's Third Treaty principle which says everyone is equal before the law "without discrimination".
In other words, the PM, Attorney General and Justice Minister have together stated, in no uncertain terms, that the country must abide by what ACT calls its First, Second and Third Treaty Principles. At the same time those three have also sworn they will not support ACT's Principles' Bill. Its a remarkable situation, whereby we have the highest ranking National politicians, including the nation's two biggest law chiefs, endorsing ACT's principles as the most important legal principles in the land, whilst at the same time insisting they should not become the law of the land. What can this mean? Either that the PM, Justice Minister and Attorney General say things they don't believe, in which case they're dishonest - or should they happen to believe what they're saying, then won't stand up for their convictions.
Sources:
https://www.act.org.nz/milestone_for_the_treaty_principles_bill
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/goldsmith_on_treaty_clauses.html
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/major-backdown-from-governments-top-legal-advisor-over-controversial-maori-prosecution-guidelines/ECYAGSGPAFDBLDM3T4DERDHU7E/
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/a_good_win.html
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
Then, arising from the "prosecution guidelines" controversy whereby the Solicitor General instructed prosecutors to consider the defendant's & victim's race before deciding whether to lay charges, Attorney General Judith Collins intervened. She stated "The law needs to be blind as to people’s ethnicity or who they are .. I do not agree people should be treated differently based on their ethnicity”. The Solicitor General withdrew the guidelines. As for the Attorney General, she is simply repeating ACT's Third Treaty principle which says everyone is equal before the law "without discrimination".
In other words, the PM, Attorney General and Justice Minister have together stated, in no uncertain terms, that the country must abide by what ACT calls its First, Second and Third Treaty Principles. At the same time those three have also sworn they will not support ACT's Principles' Bill. Its a remarkable situation, whereby we have the highest ranking National politicians, including the nation's two biggest law chiefs, endorsing ACT's principles as the most important legal principles in the land, whilst at the same time insisting they should not become the law of the land. What can this mean? Either that the PM, Justice Minister and Attorney General say things they don't believe, in which case they're dishonest - or should they happen to believe what they're saying, then won't stand up for their convictions.
Sources:
https://www.act.org.nz/milestone_for_the_treaty_principles_bill
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/goldsmith_on_treaty_clauses.html
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/major-backdown-from-governments-top-legal-advisor-over-controversial-maori-prosecution-guidelines/ECYAGSGPAFDBLDM3T4DERDHU7E/
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/a_good_win.html
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
Very good points Professor, but note the infernal corruption of the second principle. This will guarantee another 50 years of (very) expensive legal wrangling all before super-woke judges to determine exactly what these privileges really are. (Can we attack and eat our neighbours with the full protection of the law? )
Or was National just being virtuous, distancing themselves above and away from the coalition and now quietly discreetly from the public gaze and the leftish media indicating with certainty that the ACT Treaty Principles Bill will make steady progress, BECAUSE THE NATION WANTS it to pass.
The CEO and board members of the corporate state government always speak with forked tongue.
Winston Peters says there are no principles in the Treaty, it's an agreement between two peoples.
This is an interesting argument. It says the Treaty is part of history but it is not relevant today.
We are now one people. Which is what was stated at the time.
This argument avoids the creation of principles that can be constantly argued and changed. It puts the Treaty in the past. Which is probably right.
It's a good argument and worthy of serious consideration in my opinion.
There are no principles in the TOW and to try and define something that doesn't exist is courting disaster.
Nats will act entirely according to where they see the votes being: the whole thing is a vote-grab by ACT, and if the Nats think they can claw back some of that, they'll support the Bill.
You are quite right Scott - the Treaty really is a relic of the past, but the reality is that they will never expunge those confounded Treaty Principles from all the legislation. So, alas, we're back to defining them. But, good on the Professor for calling National out!
Winston is correct. There are no principles in the treaty. There are Articles.
Post a Comment