The Māori Party intends undermining the sovereignty of Parliament – if it can muster the support to implement such a policy – by establishing a “Tiriti Commission” empowered to stall or challenge Government policies and bills presented to Parliament.
Furthermore, it would establish a $220 million fund for “Māori-led constitutional transformation” discussions and working groups.
The aim of those discussions and working groups would be to prepare New Zealand for a constitutional overhaul in 2040, 200 years after the signing of the treaty.
As Stuff tells it:
The party’s co-leaders, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, released an ambitious Tiriti entrenchment policy on Tuesday, which sets out a decades-long pathway for a complete overhaul of how Parliament operates.
And:
New Zealand’s Parliament has always operated under the assumption that Parliament is supreme, meaning it can do whatever it votes to do — but this Tiriti Commission would upend that foundational principle.
The Tiriti Commission would be given the power to issue Te Tiriti Compliance Orders which would prevent bills or polices from being enacted.
If the Government wanted to continue with those bills or policies, it would have to go to the High Court to challenge the commission’s findings.
And the Waitangi Tribunal?
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 would be amended to make Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on the Crown, giving the tribunal more power to investigate and enforce breaches.
This is a bottom line for the Māori Party in coalition negotiations (which is unlikely to be with the National Party should the Nats be calling the shots in shaping the next government).
The most powerful antidote to this disagreeable constitutional proposition came from the ACT Party, which has declared its aim to wind up the Waitangi Tribunal, saying its contemporary inquiries have become increasingly ideological and expansive.
ACT leader David Seymour Seymour said the Maori Party’s approach would make the Tribunal an unelected alternative governance system.
“That is an affront to every single New Zealander which – it shouldn’t need to be said, but – includes every Māori New Zealander, who wants to be able to vote for the government that they want, and more importantly, vote out governments and policies that they dislike.”
Seymour, who has previously branded the tribunal as “increasingly activist”, acknowledges it has helped address historical grievances, but says the tribunal that operates today is different to the institution established in 1975.
“The original need for the Waitangi Tribunal has evaporated as our country has matured into a place with strong property rights, the rule of law, and restraints on the use of military power,” Seymour said.
“The historical claims were clearly wrong to anybody, the government of the day illegally used military power to take away people’s property. It won’t surprise you I’m opposed to that, but it’s not dealing with issues like that anymore.
“To have a Waitangi Tribunal that openly says ‘well, actually, we don’t think that the government is acting legitimately, despite putting in place perfectly legitimate elective policies’, that goes beyond simply being an adviser.”
ACT’s policy document said every historical claim lodged before 1 September 2008 should be heard and resolved, but any lodged after would not be including contemporary or kaupapa claims.
Reactions to ACT’s policy included challenges to Seymour’s claim that the tribunal nowadays was engaged in work it was not set up to do.
PoO consulted Google and asked: why was the Waitangi Tribunal established?
Its response:
The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 to provide a formal legal process for investigating Māori claims against the British Crown for breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi). [1, 2]
For over a century following the signing of the Treaty in 1840, Māori petitions, court cases, and protests regarding the wrongful alienation of land and lack of legal equality were routinely ignored or dismissed by the government.
By the 1970s, a powerful Māori civil rights renaissance and protest movement—including the historic 1975 Māori Land March—forced the government to act. [1, 2]
To de-escalate tensions and address these grievances, Minister of Māori Affairs Matiu Rata championed the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, creating the Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry. [1, 2]
As Stuff tells it:
The party’s co-leaders, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, released an ambitious Tiriti entrenchment policy on Tuesday, which sets out a decades-long pathway for a complete overhaul of how Parliament operates.
And:
New Zealand’s Parliament has always operated under the assumption that Parliament is supreme, meaning it can do whatever it votes to do — but this Tiriti Commission would upend that foundational principle.
The Tiriti Commission would be given the power to issue Te Tiriti Compliance Orders which would prevent bills or polices from being enacted.
If the Government wanted to continue with those bills or policies, it would have to go to the High Court to challenge the commission’s findings.
And the Waitangi Tribunal?
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 would be amended to make Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on the Crown, giving the tribunal more power to investigate and enforce breaches.
This is a bottom line for the Māori Party in coalition negotiations (which is unlikely to be with the National Party should the Nats be calling the shots in shaping the next government).
The most powerful antidote to this disagreeable constitutional proposition came from the ACT Party, which has declared its aim to wind up the Waitangi Tribunal, saying its contemporary inquiries have become increasingly ideological and expansive.
ACT leader David Seymour Seymour said the Maori Party’s approach would make the Tribunal an unelected alternative governance system.
“That is an affront to every single New Zealander which – it shouldn’t need to be said, but – includes every Māori New Zealander, who wants to be able to vote for the government that they want, and more importantly, vote out governments and policies that they dislike.”
Seymour, who has previously branded the tribunal as “increasingly activist”, acknowledges it has helped address historical grievances, but says the tribunal that operates today is different to the institution established in 1975.
“The original need for the Waitangi Tribunal has evaporated as our country has matured into a place with strong property rights, the rule of law, and restraints on the use of military power,” Seymour said.
“The historical claims were clearly wrong to anybody, the government of the day illegally used military power to take away people’s property. It won’t surprise you I’m opposed to that, but it’s not dealing with issues like that anymore.
“To have a Waitangi Tribunal that openly says ‘well, actually, we don’t think that the government is acting legitimately, despite putting in place perfectly legitimate elective policies’, that goes beyond simply being an adviser.”
ACT’s policy document said every historical claim lodged before 1 September 2008 should be heard and resolved, but any lodged after would not be including contemporary or kaupapa claims.
Reactions to ACT’s policy included challenges to Seymour’s claim that the tribunal nowadays was engaged in work it was not set up to do.
PoO consulted Google and asked: why was the Waitangi Tribunal established?
Its response:
The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 to provide a formal legal process for investigating Māori claims against the British Crown for breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi). [1, 2]
For over a century following the signing of the Treaty in 1840, Māori petitions, court cases, and protests regarding the wrongful alienation of land and lack of legal equality were routinely ignored or dismissed by the government.
By the 1970s, a powerful Māori civil rights renaissance and protest movement—including the historic 1975 Māori Land March—forced the government to act. [1, 2]
To de-escalate tensions and address these grievances, Minister of Māori Affairs Matiu Rata championed the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, creating the Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry. [1, 2]
Key Objectives Behind its Establishment: ·
Determining Treaty Meaning: It was given the unique statutory authority to interpret the official meaning and effect of the Treaty, bridging the gaps between the differing English and te reo Māori texts. [1] ·
Google said it would provide more details on how the 1985 amendment changed New Zealand history, or share some of the most landmark cases the Tribunal has ruled on.
It also gave the good advice that AI responses may include mistakes.
For another rundown on the tribunal’s establishment and purpose, we consulted Dr Michael Bassett, an historian, former Labour Cabinet Minister and former tribunal member.
He dismissed the Google text as rubbish.
The 1975 Act was intended to ensure that from then on, the country would operate according to the principles (undefined) of the Treaty, Bassett said.
There was no historical research involved during the Tribunal’s first ten years. In 1985 the Lange government widened the Tribunal’s brief so that it could examine historical grievances as far back as 1840.
Many claims were lodged. I spent ten years 1994-2004 as a Tribunal member wrestling with these issues. “Full and Final Settlements” were arrived at, and money paid out.
Helen Clark’s government in 2008 decided that the historical claims had run their course, and henceforth NO new historical claims would be heard by the Tribunal.
But the Tribunal took no notice and set out on an array of inquiries of its own, culminating in a huge, expensive inquiry 2014-2015 in a futile attempt to argue that Maori had never ceded sovereignty, despite all evidence that they had, and consequently were the paramount authority in the country.
No government has ever accepted this argument, and quite rightly, some like ACT and others argue that the Waitangi Tribunal is out of control, and ought to be put out of its misery. For many years it has been too loosely supervised and funded by governments.
Bassett was blunt about what should happen: he said the Tribunal’s time is up – and it’s a self-inflicted injury.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
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.