The claim that adjusting Treaty clause wording will create decades of instability gets the problem backwards.
New Zealand’s ongoing tension over Treaty principles isn’t caused by too little legal weight—it’s caused by inconsistency and ambiguity across laws. Different statutes use different phrases (“recognise,” “have regard to,” “give effect to”), creating uncertainty about what the Treaty actually requires in practice.
Standardising wording—such as moving to “take into account”—doesn’t erase Treaty considerations. It clarifies the level of obligation, ensuring decision-makers must genuinely consider Treaty principles without creating open-ended or conflicting duties across every piece of legislation.
Importantly, “take into account” is not a loophole for ignoring Māori interests. Under New Zealand administrative law, decision-makers must show they have properly considered relevant factors, or their decisions can be challenged in court. That safeguard remains intact.
The argument also overreaches by linking Treaty clause wording to outcomes like climate resilience and social wellbeing. These depend on policy choices, funding, and execution, not the phrasing of statutory obligations. Strong wording alone does not guarantee effective outcomes—just as weaker wording does not prevent them.
There’s also an assumption that stronger Treaty clauses create stability. In reality, the opposite is often true. Broad, undefined obligations like “give effect to” invite expansive interpretation and legal contest, especially when applied inconsistently across different laws. That fuels the very cycle of challenge and reversal the article warns about.
If the goal is long-term stability, the focus should be on clear, consistent, and democratically accountable legal standards—not continually expanding obligations that vary from one statute to another.
Finally, the suggestion that these changes make Māori—or the wider public—“unsafe” is not supported by evidence. Legal wording adjustments do not remove representation, consultation, or rights. Those are determined by specific policies and institutional frameworks, which remain subject to democratic oversight.
In short: clarity reduces conflict; ambiguity sustains it. If we want fewer legal battles and more durable policy, consistency in Treaty clauses is part of the solution—not the problem.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
Importantly, “take into account” is not a loophole for ignoring Māori interests. Under New Zealand administrative law, decision-makers must show they have properly considered relevant factors, or their decisions can be challenged in court. That safeguard remains intact.
The argument also overreaches by linking Treaty clause wording to outcomes like climate resilience and social wellbeing. These depend on policy choices, funding, and execution, not the phrasing of statutory obligations. Strong wording alone does not guarantee effective outcomes—just as weaker wording does not prevent them.
There’s also an assumption that stronger Treaty clauses create stability. In reality, the opposite is often true. Broad, undefined obligations like “give effect to” invite expansive interpretation and legal contest, especially when applied inconsistently across different laws. That fuels the very cycle of challenge and reversal the article warns about.
If the goal is long-term stability, the focus should be on clear, consistent, and democratically accountable legal standards—not continually expanding obligations that vary from one statute to another.
Finally, the suggestion that these changes make Māori—or the wider public—“unsafe” is not supported by evidence. Legal wording adjustments do not remove representation, consultation, or rights. Those are determined by specific policies and institutional frameworks, which remain subject to democratic oversight.
In short: clarity reduces conflict; ambiguity sustains it. If we want fewer legal battles and more durable policy, consistency in Treaty clauses is part of the solution—not the problem.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.