In a letter addressed to the PM regarding ACT's Treaty Principles Bill, NZ King’s Counsels succeeded in one respect. They showed they don't know constitutional law. When it comes to such matters, the job of the Courts is strictly to interpret constitutions, not re-write them.
Yet that is what NZ's KCs have advocated.
Although the word "principles" never appeared in the Treaty, nor was defined by Parliament, the Counsels assert the Courts constitute the only authority in NZ with powers to make them up. Even though the Treaty signatories on both sides never referred to such matters, judges over the past years, most of them illiterate in the sense of being unable to speak, read or write Te Reo Māori, so with little sense of the Māori version, have nonetheless been self-declared by their peers as validly inventing & writing a set of Principles. They claim these now form a significant chunk of our Constitution.
Extraordinarily, the Kings Counsels assert that NZ governments, like the one Seymour co-leads, lack authority to "rewrite" any Treaty Principles, since, they argue, that constitutes rewriting the Treaty. But those same Counsels are perfectly content with the Courts having those same powers. They argue our Courts, entirely independently of the Treaty signatories, have already "developed" their own set of Principles, which now "represent settled law". That assertion is far more insulting to Māori than to non-Māori. At least the Treaty was a jointly signed document - but the Principles were written down over a century later by a group of Anglophile NZ judges, with British educated legal minds. Take one of them, Lord Robin Cooke. His eulogy reads, "Lord Cooke was entirely at home at Westminster in the House of Lords, in Cambridge or Oxford, at Inner Temple and in the members' pavilion at Lords .. he was a monarchist, counting it a privilege to be one of Her Majesty's judges".
Are these my views? Not really. I'd argue they were much closer to those of one of ACT Leader David Seymour' most vociferous critics, Treaty scholar, Dame Anne Salmond. She declares, "What do the relationships forged in 1840 mean for contemporary constitutional arrangements in NZ? That’s the puzzle at the heart of Te Tiriti". However, it appears that for New Zealand's Kings Counsels there is no such puzzle. They have already "settled" the matter in law. How ironic for a group of pompous puffed-up lawyers bearing the title "King" to lecture Parliament and the people, telling us how they've got it all sorted; how the courts have already written our Constitution all by their little selves.
Sources:
https://www.chrislynchmedia.com/news-items/kings-counsel-call-on-government-to-withdraw-proposed-treaty-principles-bill-citing-constitutional-concerns/
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/anne-salmond-iwi-kiwi-and-te-tiriti/ar-AA1sVAMR
12 comments:
What an inferior bunch of noddies!
Hmm! Is it possible to suggest to the current Govt. that we need to establish a "Tower of London", where we can place those who are perceived, by Govt., as to having extreme views that are contrary to the Laws of the Land, as, established by the Govt[s] , both past & present. And such "persons, therein incarcerated" will be placed in the hands of the Interrogators to establish Loyal to the Nation they Serve and be subject to the
punishments determined for any Act of Treason, against both the Govt of the day and the Laws of The Land, as promulgated by the Govts past & present.
I do not know why, but as I was typing this, I had this image "of chopping blocks", strange that.
Should we recommend that the KC's "attempt their own Hikoi, to Parliament"??
That isn't completely correct, because the common law has been developed by judges in constitutional matters just as much as in other matters. There shouldn't be a contradiction between developing law and interpreting law because the development is supposed to happen when the law is interpreted in different real life situations that the language in the statutes don't address. By looking at a number of judicial decisions together, and seeing what practically works and what doesn't, you can infer principles from the common reasoning. From that comes the common law. Common law comes from induction rather than deduction.
The problem in NZ is that judges here develop the common law, not by seeing how Parliamentary law works in real life (which is far too difficult) but by just asserting their own political opinions, often overriding Parliament's intentions. The letter from the 44 KCs is evidence of that. The academics love that when it accords with their own political opinions, so activist judges, like Lord Cooke, are put on a pedestal.
I hope this explains the difference between the way the common law was when we had the Privy Council (who frequently overruled our activist judges) and what it's become since - and the reason why appeals to the PC were abolished.
Maybe so anon@1.36, but those KC's should still have pulled their egotistical heads in.
These KCs who are likely aspirants for judicial positions obviously don’t know much. Evidently, they are ignorant of conditions in NZ in the 1800s and that the original draft of the Treaty (probably the Littlewood find) was written in English (there being few Maori who could read or write) and translated word for word as far as possible into the native language. Unfortunately, the later translations back to English did not have the same degree of accuracy.
Send the biased and lying media to the Tower as well. Why is our Government letting them subvert our policy determinations? No-one finds them relevant any longer so it's time to shoot the biting dog and bury it. MC
There are over 200 KCs at the moment - active in the law or related areas. This group represents 20% at most - but not reported as such in the msm.
Just who are these King’s Counsel?
No-where are they named, not even in statements issued by the PM’s office.
Usually in their self-promotion, writers of “open letters” to the PM proudly name themselves and MSM dutifully record that. Not in this case.
Why do they not want to be publicly named?
Could it be that with that knowledge everyone will be able to discover their client lists and the massive conflict of interest they have in the form of iwi and other Maori groups as past and/or present clients?
Of course they don’t want the meaning of the law clarified. Their taxpayer-funded bank balances depend on the so-called “principles” of the treaty remaining vague, undefined, and subject to re-invention at the hands of KCs, so-called expert witnesses, and activist judges.
PM Luxon says Seymours Bill is too simplistic. He also wants the “principles” to remain undefined and differences dealt with on a “case by case” basis. That way he can keep National’s options open and kick the can down the road. Again.
It won’t do for:
a) Ordinary voters to have a direct say in a referendum, and,
b) The whole thing to be clarified once and for all.
Well, we’re all going to have a say anyway in a bit under three years.
Watch this space.
NIGEL HAMPTON CNZM, OBE, KC
SIR HUGH RENNIE KNZM, CBE, KC
SARAH ARMSTRONG KC
KERRYN BEATON KC
JOHN BILLINGTON KC
BRONWYN CARRUTHERS KC
MARGARET CASEY KC
ANITA CHAN KC
NICK CHISNALL KC
JENNY COOPER KC
TIFFANY COOPER KC
VIVIENNE CRAWSHAW KC
CATHERINE CULL KC
DR JAMES EVERY-PALMER KC
KAREN FEINT KC
ANTONIA FISHER KC
DR SIMON FOOTE KC
RICHARD FOWLER KC
SALLY GEPP KC
STUART GRIEVE KC
STEPHANE GRIEVE KC
DR RODNEY HARRISON KC
TONY HUGHES-JOHNSON KC
SIMON JEFFERSON KC
FRANCES JOYCHILD KC
LYNDA KEARNS KC
JULIE-ANN KINCADE KC
ALANYA LIMMER KC
RON MANSFIELD KC
STEPHEN McCARTHY KC
CHRISTINE MEECHAN KC
JULIAN MILES KC
SIMON MITCHELL KC
JAMES RAPLEY KC
SUZANNE ROBERTSON KC
PHILIP SHAMY KC
DR ROYDEN SOMERVILLE KC
ANNE STEVENS KC
CHRIS STEVENSON KC
NURA TAEFI KC
NICHOLAS TILL KC
PETER WHITESIDE KC
At least we now have a list of people who should not be Judges, and incidentally, a group of people that don’t recognise the supremacy of Parliament and therefore should no longer by KCs
Re. Anna Mouse's list : Good heavens - Chris Finlayson is not a signatory. Nor Sian Elias. Both staunch supporters of Maori self-determination. Without them, does the list lose some credibility?
Thanks Anna.
Now for their client lists.
How many advise iwi, or are partners in firms which do?
Post a Comment