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.
9 comments:
Perhaps they could consistently and clearly remove all reference to the treaty from all government statutes.
Anyone bold enough to form a NZ Constitution that dictates that everyone will be treated equally regardless of heritage, race, or religion ?
Ardern has a lot to answer for on this one
A strong argument from one of the best commentators on this site. I think this kind of article is going to be the capstone of future discussions on this point. The west needs to reclaim its masculinity.
i couldnt agree more!!!, all this vague, poorly defined legislation unsettles everyone !!!! both sides. Currently everyone is unhappy. it DOES have to be sorted , yes ,not so nice but DOES need to be done.. Time for those in wellington to get some courage !!!!
I'm with you, CXH. The Treaty is (or should be) of little relevance to life today and constantly harking back to it has done us no good as a Nation. We have never been more divided (and insignificant) than we are now and the future looks bleak - unless you're an imbecile and have little or no appreciation of where this current path leads.
If you disagree, tell me why a fractional descendant of a Treaty subject should be accorded an automatic, paid 'say' on just about everything? Are their wants and needs different to everyone else's, and are they otherwise paying for it - or just not clipping the ticket sufficiently?
The treaty was a masculine document, signed by chiefs (doesn’t get more manly than that) and representatives of the crown. It would be wishy washy and limp wristed to reneg on a contract. Kiwis need to man up.
Every second person is unhappy with the ongoing co-governance rort and what it is costing ordinary taxpayers, but worse, creating an apartheid system. Whoever has the courage to remove all Treaty legislation from statutes would get my vote Instantly.
The Treaty was a simple document for simpler times. There were a few breaches by both sides for a while and these have mainly been addressed. It can't be reinterpreted everytime someone of a newer generation gets their knickers in a knot and thinks they are hard done by. If people want changes they can renegotiate them, to a newer version, but you can't reinterpret the original document.
Finally, the "principles" were not in the original treaty. They are illegal, because they were never approved by the public vote. The late Maori King stated THERE ARE NO PRINCIPLES, ONLY THE TREATY ITSELF. So why are Maori radicals hellbent on pursuing the "principles" rort. I thought they would support their late Kings wishes
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.