I have adopted the approach that understanding our history is the solution to the Treaty Principles, there are in fact no principles, merely statements of intent, but if our politicians want to call them principles then who am I to quibble. The imprtant thing is that the "principles" as defined by ACT portray the intent of the Treaty.
We are in this position primarily because of the misintepretation by Hugh Kawharu of "tino rangatiratanga" and later, in 1987 ,in the Court of Appeal, Justice Robin Cooke intimated that “The Treaty established a relationship akin to a partnership between Crown and Maori”. Although the operative word was "akin" it was soon taken out of context and this set in motion the development of the so called principles for their inclusion in legislation. This aspect has not been covered in my submission as I believe this has not had the impact of Kawharu's misinterpretation.