The Honourable Ruth Richardson has written an excellent submission on the Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill. She explains why the bill is important and why the current situation cannot stand. I now attempt to take some salient points from her submission.
She puts the importance of the bill in the same league as the Reserve Bank Act 1989 and the Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994. In her opinion, the latter and this bill share the same lineage in that they both articulate a set of principles that will guide the conduct of policy and practice.
Ruth says the Treaty of Waitangi was not, and never was intended to be tantamount to the creation of a written constitution. The Treaty was more of a pact between the Crown and the Māori signatories.
In her submission she says her working understanding of the essence of the articles is as follows:
Article 1 ceded sovereignty to the Crown
Article 2 secured property rights to Māori
Article 3 conferred citizenship on all
Ruth goes on to say:
There have been many what I see as ‘codicils to the will’ since the signing of the Treaty.
*The Courts have introduced the notion of the Treaty as a partnership (the word is nowhere to be found in the Treaty) and more recently introduced the concept of tikanga as an integral part of our jurisprudence in addition to statute law and common law.
*The Waitangi Tribunal has advanced many variations on that theme and taken more latterly to pronouncing on matters well beyond its brief.
*There are numerous statutes that in a generic way stipulate that regard must be had to the Treaty.
Absent has been legislation that stipulates what those principles are, hence, the genesis of this Bill.
It is axiomatic in our constitutional arrangements that Parliament is the sovereign body to set the law of the land hence the invitation with the introduction of the Bill to commence this process. […]
The Select Committee process is the perfect platform for both debate and distillation of submissions that will advance opinions sincerely held, while very different, in the advocacy of what should transpire.
Ruth apportions blame for the current situation to various parts of the judiciary and indeed to parliament itself. She says parliament has been:
culpable by enacting in a piecemeal fashion legislation with all manner of renditions of ‘the principles’ without defining exactly what those principles are or mean.
Not to be left out, officialdom has weighed in with multiple edicts as to how the treaty principles must play out in the correct conduct of business or the correct use of language and names.
The bottom line is that scope and meaning of ‘the principles of the treaty’ have evolved by accident rather than by design.
And here’s the kicker from Ruth:
I will point the finger and say that it is Parliament who have abrogated their responsibility to legislate for the meaning of the principles and no wonder that all sorts of interpretations from all quarters have filled.
And right there is the nub of the problem that Christopher Luxon seems to want to ignore in favour of continuing on in the same shambolic fashion. He says he wants to consider New Zealand First’s ideas on the subject. What are they? Surely now is the time for a public discussion on those as well, so a comparison can be made.
I think just discarding this bill is throwing out the baby with the bath water. We the public have a right to be made aware of all the political ideas on the subject. This is a matter of paramount importance to the country as a whole. It is not something that should be left to parliament alone. The people have a right to a say on the matter.
That is why I’m with David Seymour and upholding democracy by having a referendum on the issue. Seymour says that part of the reason for a referendum on the Treaty Principles Bill is that it legitimises ordinary people having a say. He says a lot of people have felt really betrayed, that’s there’s this special area that they’re not allowed into even though it affects them because it influences every part of government. He’s absolutely right and it is the best way to put the issue to bed.
Ruth Richardson’s submission was published in full last Monday on Kiwiblog. It is well worth a read.
