I was a member of the Lange Government that extended the Tribunal’s jurisdiction back to 1840. Despite the difficulties that decision created, on balance I think it was the right decision.
We should be proud that New Zealand was founded not by conquest, but by treaty.
For a naval officer, it is a good statement of our founding principles.
The Crown — today, all of us — is sovereign. Property rights are protected. And the people of New Zealand enjoy the rights of British citizens: access to the courts and equality before the law.
I was later appointed to the Tribunal. I read its decisions and its strategic plan.
The Tribunal has reinterpreted the Treaty in ways that Hobson and the chiefs would not recognise. The Tribunal is heading towards constructing a radical new constitution, in which unaccountable iwi leaders would become permanent partners in the government of New Zealand.
I was not willing to lend my name to that project. I resigned.
I have given a great deal of thought to how the Tribunal might be reformed. It should always have been headed by a High Court judge.
I have come to the conclusion that David Seymour is right: the Tribunal is now unreformable.
That does not mean that Māori and non-Māori should lose the ability to hold the Government of the day to the Crown’s Treaty undertakings.
Here is my suggestion.
Abolish the Waitangi Tribunal. Make it clear that Parliament is sovereign, and that no Tribunal ruling which has not been accepted by the Crown is a legal precedent.
Preserve the right of any citizen to take a Treaty-related case to the High Court and seek a declaration as to whether the Crown has honoured its Treaty obligations.
That would preserve the Treaty as our founding document without allowing our constitution to be rewritten by a body that has no democratic mandate.
The Crown — today, all of us — is sovereign. Property rights are protected. And the people of New Zealand enjoy the rights of British citizens: access to the courts and equality before the law.
I was later appointed to the Tribunal. I read its decisions and its strategic plan.
The Tribunal has reinterpreted the Treaty in ways that Hobson and the chiefs would not recognise. The Tribunal is heading towards constructing a radical new constitution, in which unaccountable iwi leaders would become permanent partners in the government of New Zealand.
I was not willing to lend my name to that project. I resigned.
I have given a great deal of thought to how the Tribunal might be reformed. It should always have been headed by a High Court judge.
I have come to the conclusion that David Seymour is right: the Tribunal is now unreformable.
That does not mean that Māori and non-Māori should lose the ability to hold the Government of the day to the Crown’s Treaty undertakings.
Here is my suggestion.
Abolish the Waitangi Tribunal. Make it clear that Parliament is sovereign, and that no Tribunal ruling which has not been accepted by the Crown is a legal precedent.
Preserve the right of any citizen to take a Treaty-related case to the High Court and seek a declaration as to whether the Crown has honoured its Treaty obligations.
That would preserve the Treaty as our founding document without allowing our constitution to be rewritten by a body that has no democratic mandate.
The Honourable Richard Prebble CBE is a former member of the New Zealand Parliament. Initially a member of the Labour Party, he joined the newly formed ACT New Zealand party under Roger Douglas in 1996, becoming its leader from 1996 to 2004. This article was sourced HERE
15 comments:
If ACT want to be taken seriously regarding the Waitangi Tribunal they need to promise to have the relevant legislation passed in the first year of the term and have the Tribunal gone by the end of the term.
If they think it is important, why did they not do it this term?
We need for Parliament to start performing (actually doing things) and the Maori issue is the most important for me. What is happening in that space is just crazy.
Totally agree Barrie. Could not have said it better.
Steve Ellis
Firstly, that right for any citizen to take a case to the High Court should be in their own time and on their own dime. Secondly, the Treaty now, in effect, involves everyone (you've effectively said so), because we are collectively 'the Crown'. Therefore, if everyone has responsibilities and obligations to it, then everyone and anyone can and should be able to be brought to account and that certainly includes those identifying as Maori. It's not, nor should it be, only the one-way (the Crown 'only' can do wrong) street it is currently. Hopefully, that would bring to a close the nonsense that Maori didn't cede sovereignty (and a lot of other spurious claims). For if it didn't, then there's is no agreement (and certainly no 'utmost good faith') and then, in that case, the Treaty becomes a simple nullity. We could then all move on as 'one people' - as was originally intended.
Agreed Barrie Davis - Helen Clark, Nanaia Mahuta changed or brought in legislation at the drop of a hat - the current lot are fiddling while Rome burns
The 137,000 new immigrants during this term are now held responsible for unproven, alleged crimes by people from 180 years ago.
And the people making this call into perpetuity are unelected, unqualified racists called the Waitangi Tribunal.
Just so ludicrous that it couldn't be true, but sadly it is.
NZ has a leader who will not even admit it's a problem and sure as hell refuses to do anything about it.
Barrie, could not agree more with you. Yes David needs to apply as much pressure and get things done, NOW . Its time to deliver
A couple more points:
1) This article says "The Crown — today, all of us — is sovereign" and "Parliament is sovereign". But for that to be the case We the people ('all of us') would need to agree that we vest our sovereignty in the Crown in Parliament, and that has never happened.
2) This article refers to "the Treaty as our founding document," but it isn't. If things had stopped with the Treaty, New Zealand would not today be a state and would have remained a Maori nation of tribes under the Crown: "nation: a large body of people united by common descent, culture or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory" (Concise Oxford). There are further instruments which founded New Zealand and its government which is the institution necessary for a state: "state: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government" (Concise Oxford).
Fun fact. Before 1840 Maori population density in NZ was less than that of today’s Sahara Desert.
How can the Waitangi Tribunal pontificate about wrongs, both real and imagined, perpetrated against Maori Tangata Whenua, of New Zealand when they hadn’t even clapped eyes on 90% of it.
Perhaps Mr Davis could explain how a junior partner in a coalition was expected to impose a major piece of legislation on Parliament like abolishing the Waitangi Tribunal. ACT was, and still is, party to a coalition agreement that contained no such commitment.
Due to the intransigence of National, ACT could not even get their Treaty Principles Bill passed which was at least recognised in the agreement. But that's how MMP works and Mr Davis can hardly vilify ACT for not doing something it didn't sign up for in thr first place.
Seymour knows his political and constitutional limitations and is happy to play a longer game on race relations. But he sure managed to milk the Treaty Principles debate for every drop of publicity to drive the point home to the wider voting public.
So, Mr Davis should direct his criticism at National for their refusal to support that Bill beyond a first reading. It would have been a very effective way of reining in the Tribunal.
Fortunately, Seymour has only just got started, and we will be hearing a lot more about the Tribunal in the run-up to the election as ACT jockeys for a stronger hand in the next coalition negotiations. You want to abolish the Tribunal Mr Davis? Then vote ACT in November.
Anon@10.26 - Interesting fun fact, but Maori are "tangata maori" not "Tangata Whenua". If you're going to quote things as facts, it's important to get them right!
Mr Jones,
I don't care if it is Christopher Luxon, David Seymour, Winston Peters or Mrs Mopp the Beehive cleaning lady. Things have got out of hand and we have been fed lame excuses to the point where I just want it fixed. I don't want to get dragged into the politics of who does what to whom. My message to Parliament is: Do the job we elected you to do or don't stand at the next election. Don't go away unhappy. Just go away. The problem is the party bosses and donors are not sending us their best people. At least I hope they're not.
No thanks Richard. Given our activist judiciary the High Court would be little better than the Waitangi Tribunal. There is no trustworthy venue. Instead of settling grievances we’ve turned grievance into a greedy, bottomless pit of increasingly outrageous demands. Time for NZ to grow up and move on.
National and Labour have trying out do each on this crap for a long time. They've both gotta go.
Hate to rain on your parade Mr Davis but MPs are elected by a whole host of individual voters all of whom have different motives. "We" do not elect MPs all to do the same job. David Seymour is sent to Parliament to the things his voters want. Chloe Swarbrick is also sent, but by an entirely different group to do a whole lot of different things. Democracy guarantees that up to half the voters in the country will be disillusioned (like you) when their pet projects do not see the light of day for the lack of a Parliamentary majority. And it's the very politics you choose to ignore that determines what actually happens when those disparate MPs form a Parliament and try do do the job they were sent there to do. So, in the real world, if you want the Waitangi Tribunal abolished, on the basis of the policies announced by the Parties to date, you have play politics and vote ACT.
Gee, thanks for that lesson on politics, Jones Boy. You really are the smartest person in the room!
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.