I think it is useful to approach the issues this bill covers in steps. The first step is whether it would be a good idea for there to be a legislative definition of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
I think Parliament would be derelict in its duty, not to provide a legislative defintion. If Parliament is to pass dozens of laws referring to the Principles, it should provide certainity on what it means in doing so.
The next step is whether the three proposed principles are the correct interpretation of the intention of those who signed the Treaty. This is very challenging, as there is legitimate disagreement and debate on this. The historical record can be intepreted in multiple ways, and the dominant interpretation has changed massively over time from Sir Apirana Ngata to today. This actually makes the case for why there should be a legislative definition.
While I personally like the proposed principles in this bill, I favour certainity over personal preference. I would challenge opponents of the current version of the biill to propose alternate wording for the principles, rather than have Parliament provide no guidance at all. Then there could be an informed debate between two versions of the Principles.
I would much rather have a legislative definition of the Principles that I 75% agree with, than no legislative definition at all.
An alternative approach to this issue, if providing a legislative definition of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is not possible is to take the principles of this bill and entrench them in the Bill of Rights Act as principles of a liberal democratic country – and note that no interpretation of the Treaty can override entrenched human rights such as equality of suffrage.
A possible wording could be:
No policy or action by the Government (including Treaty of Waitangi issues) can over-ride the following:
* The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws in the best interests of everyone; and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
* Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights including equality of suffrage and the rights of Citizenship by birth.
NB – Submissions are open until 11.59 pm Tuesday. You can submit here.
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.
While I personally like the proposed principles in this bill, I favour certainity over personal preference. I would challenge opponents of the current version of the biill to propose alternate wording for the principles, rather than have Parliament provide no guidance at all. Then there could be an informed debate between two versions of the Principles.
I would much rather have a legislative definition of the Principles that I 75% agree with, than no legislative definition at all.
An alternative approach to this issue, if providing a legislative definition of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is not possible is to take the principles of this bill and entrench them in the Bill of Rights Act as principles of a liberal democratic country – and note that no interpretation of the Treaty can override entrenched human rights such as equality of suffrage.
A possible wording could be:
No policy or action by the Government (including Treaty of Waitangi issues) can over-ride the following:
* The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws in the best interests of everyone; and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
* Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights including equality of suffrage and the rights of Citizenship by birth.
NB – Submissions are open until 11.59 pm Tuesday. You can submit here.
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.
7 comments:
"suggest an alternate way" I think you meant to say "alternatIVE"
Hmm - I like it - but - I wish thee were no principles to the Treaty (like NZF). Just want to go back to te tiriti plus the Littlewood version, revere them and put them in Te Papa, disestablish the whole Treaty 'industry', legislate clearly for absolutely equal rights for all citizens, including taxation, no special rights in water, seabed, fresh air. tikaka..............
Excellent, but maybe add: and any changes to the above, or questions of interpretation, be subject to public referendum.
A possible next step?
"The historical record can be intepreted in multiple ways, and the dominant interpretation has changed massively over time from Sir Apirana Ngata to today. "
Translating that ---"the interpretation has been twisted massively to suit the activist's narrative since Sir Apirana Ngata wrote his book"
There should be no room for twisting the meaning of a relatively simple document. The chiefs who signed the Treaty knew exactly what they were signing.
David, you should have gone to David Seymour with this and then go with his decision. It will be difficult to get the TPB over the line and for that we need a united front.
I too have difficulty with Principle 2, but I figure better half of something rather than all of nothing.
Well said!
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.