Robert MacCulloch
Robert MacCulloch is a native of New Zealand and worked at the Reserve Bank of NZ before he travelled to the UK to complete a PhD in Economics at Oxford University.
In a letter addressed to the PM regarding ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, NZ King’s Counsels succeeded in one respect. They showed they don’t know constitutional law. When it comes to such matters, the job of the courts is strictly to interpret constitutions, not re-write them. Yet that is what NZ’s KCs have advocated.
Although the word principles never appeared in the Treaty, nor was defined by parliament, the counsels assert the courts constitute the only authority in NZ with powers to make them up. Even though the Treaty signatories on both sides never referred to such matters, judges over the past years, most of them illiterate in the sense of being unable to speak, read or write Te Reo Māori, so with little sense of the Māori version, have nonetheless been self-declared by their peers as validly inventing and writing a set of principles. They claim these now form a significant chunk of our Constitution.
Extraordinarily, the Kings Counsels assert that NZ governments, like the one Seymour co-leads, lack authority to ‘rewrite’ any Treaty Principles, since, they argue, that constitutes rewriting the Treaty. But those same counsels are perfectly content with the courts having those same powers. They argue our courts, entirely independently of the Treaty signatories, have already ‘developed’ their own set of Principles, which now ‘represent settled law’. That assertion is far more insulting to Māori than to non-Māori. At least the Treaty was a jointly signed document – but the principles were written down over a century later by a group of Anglophile NZ judges, with British educated legal minds. Take one of them, Lord Robin Cooke. His eulogy reads, “Lord Cooke was entirely at home at Westminster in the House of Lords, in Cambridge or Oxford, at Inner Temple and in the members’ pavilion at Lords ... he was a monarchist, counting it a privilege to be one of Her Majesty’s judges.”
Are these my views? Not really. I’d argue they were much closer to those of one of ACT Leader David Seymour’s most vociferous critics, Treaty scholar Dame Anne Salmond. She declares, “What do the relationships forged in 1840 mean for contemporary constitutional arrangements in NZ? That’s the puzzle at the heart of Te Tiriti.” However, it appears that for New Zealand's King’s Counsels there is no such puzzle. They have already ‘settled’ the matter in law. How ironic for a group of pompous puffed-up lawyers bearing the title ‘King’ to lecture parliament and the people, telling us how they’ve got it all sorted – how the courts have already written our Constitution all by their little selves.
Sources:
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/anne-salmond-iwi-kiwi-and-te-tiriti/ar-AA1sVAMR
This article was originally published by Down to Earth Kiwi.
