Ananish Chaudhuri’s Post

The date Thursday 14th November 2024 will go down as an important day in New Zealand's history. The Treaty Principles Bill 2024 (TPB) passed it's first reading in the House of Parliament. A bill that seeks to clarify the constitutonal interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand's founding document. A similar previous law passed in 1975 also instructed the government how to interpret and enact the Treaty however since then the interpretation has changed and evolved through case law. It is important for all government departments and laws to have a consistent interpretation of the Treaty for the proper functioning of society. I applaud and thank David Seymour for his bravery and honor in presenting the bill and for those MPs who voted to pass it to it's second reading.For those who want to be more informed on the issues being debated, the Treaty Principles Bill can be read here: https://lnkd.in/gcHpZTnV - it us just 6 pages long. The official wording of the Treaty of Waitangi can be read here: https://lnkd.in/gM4vGqEB - this is also only a few pages

The Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill - the quality of Ministry of Justice advice. Last night a Newshub story featured material from the Ministry of Justice released by the Waitangi Tribunal that criticised the Treaty Principles Bill's interpretation of the Treaty/Tiriti (see attached clip). I have no particular axe to grind on this issue. I just want an informed public discussion about the meaning of the Treaty as I believe it is critical to our future to have such a discussion. With this in mind, earlier in the year I requested under the Official Information Act all substantive analysis by the Ministry of Justice in the past 10 years on the meaning of the Treaty and the Treaty principles. The reply I received was that NO substantive analysis had been undertaken. Given this answer, I really do question the Ministry's capacity to say anything meaningful on the Treaty to Ministers. This is very disappointing as there is so much material that could have usefully been prepared for Ministers to help facilitate a constructive public discussion about the various interpretations of the Treaty. Disclosure: I have previously been a Ministry of Justice employee.

The Treaty Principles Bill The Treaty Principles Bill will get its first reading in Parliament today. I support the bill and if you are interested, I discuss my support for the bill here: https://lnkd.in/gx9RJKg7 And no there were no principles in the original Treaty; this is a later addition by New Zealand Courts. Two key provisions of the Bill are (1) Parliament has the right to govern and (2) We all have equal rights. In another time, this would be relatively straightforward. The reason why this is controversial is that a loose coalition of leftist academics and judges along with a Maori elite have decided that challenges to the status quo will endanger their elite status. The current situation serves them well. If you look at India’s long tradition of caste-based reservations (which have become a huge problem) then what becomes clear is that this system has certainly benefited the elites among the backward castes like the Yadavs but not many benefits have accrued to those who are really in need. In fact, it is a similar attempt to implement such reservations that got the Prime Minister of Bangladesh ousted from office with her having to flee the country. There is no doubt that the average Maori are socio-economically worse off than the average Pakeha. But if the goal is to reduce inequity, then what about the poor Fijians, Tongans, Samoans, Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Malaysians and Iranians? It is also not clear that the average Maori actually benefits from the status quo. Why base help for the needy on race rather than need? And if New Zealand is to be governed by a partnership between the Pakeha and the Maori then what about the quarter of the population that are neither Maori nor Pakeha? What happens to them and their children? What is their status? What connection can this quarter of the population feel to a country where their very existence seems like an afterthought? As the many marches and protests proliferate, and the media talking heads and leftist luminaries pontificate ad nauseum, it is important to remember that in surveys many more support the Treaty Principles Bill than oppose it. The people supporting the bill are a majority; those opposed are in the minority. But the Treaty Principles Bill is not going to a referendum. It is entirely possible that the vocal minority will succeed in torpedoing this bill. You do not need to agree with the ACT party to support this specific bill. If you support the bill, then talk to your friends and family. Let people know where you stand. Talk to your elected representative. Write letters to the editor. Ask questions, both of those proposing the bill and those who are opposing it. Then decide. And no, you are not being racist by supporting equality for everyone. It is the other side that fits that description better. 

This is an excellent, clear explanation from Carwyn Jones on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi - and on why the Treaty Principles Bill is so destructive and indefensible. This piece shows that there is not uncertainty about the Treaty principles justifying legislative change: "we now have a pretty clear idea about what the term 'the principles of the Treaty' means, and a great deal of certainty about how that term applies". It then goes on to detail why it's so important people speak up and oppose the Treaty Principles Bill. The article shows how the Bill's principles do not reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Bill reflects misinformation, and it would remove Māori rights - changing the terms of Te Tiriti without seeking agreement from other parties. Carwyn Jones's words should be quoted in full: "it is an act of extreme bad faith for one party to a treaty to try to change the terms of that treaty without seeking the agreement from the other parties. While the Treaty Principles Bill cannot change the words of Te Tiriti, redefining Treaty principles in the way proposed would fundamentally alter the recognition of Māori rights that are guaranteed in Te Tiriti. In fact, it would effectively remove those rights." https://lnkd.in/g5CvYk6n

Critical that this gets shared (and understood) as widely as possible.

20 years ago, on 29 October 2004, representatives of the EU countries signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in Rome.     This Treaty aimed to streamline EU treaties, affirm shared values and strengthen the role of citizens and fundamental rights. While the Treaty was not ratified by all EU countries, this path led to the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009.     The Constitutional Treaty remains a significant moment in our Union’s history, representing our ongoing commitment to a cohesive, democratic and resilient Europe. 🇪🇺     #EUHistory

20 years ago, on 29 October 2004, representatives of the EU countries signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in Rome.     This Treaty aimed to streamline EU treaties, affirm shared values and strengthen the role of citizens and fundamental rights. While the Treaty was not ratified by all EU countries, this path led to the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009.     The Constitutional Treaty remains a significant moment in our Union’s history, representing our ongoing commitment to a cohesive, democratic and resilient Europe. 🇪🇺     #EUHistory

Max, I think we need to consider a few fundamentals: (1) Do we believe that there is only one category of NZ citizenship or are we tolerant of a quasi-apartheid system in which we differentiate between citizens based on elements of ethnicity; (2) Do we consider the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1980) - then a treaty can only be agreed between two States. This raises the question of whether the approximately 100 Maori tribes which signed the Treaty of Waitangi could be considered to constitute a state, even under the declarative theory of statehood as per article 3 of the Montevideo Convention 1933;

Max, I think we need to consider a few fundamentals: (1) Do we believe that there is only one category of NZ citizenship or are we tolerant of a quasi-apartheid system in which we differentiate between citizens based on elements of ethnicity; (2) Do we consider the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1980) - then a treaty can only be agreed between two States. This raises the question of whether the approximately 100 Maori tribes which signed the Treaty of Waitangi could be considered to constitute a state, even under the declarative theory of statehood as per article 3 of the Montevideo Convention 1933;

Canada has two constitutions and two “heads of power” that impact on Inherent & Treaty rights (section 91.24 of Constitution Act 1867 & section 35 of Constitution Act 1982), which are based on “two founding nations” white supremacy (French & English). The Trudeau Liberal government’s 2015 campaign platform promised to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Trudeau government has passed its interpretation of UNDRIP through Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration Act (UNDA), and a National Action-Plan. After 9 years of the Trudeau Liberal government’s actions, we now know the federal Department of Justice interprets UNDRIP through domestic section 35 common law and not the emerging international customary law involving Indigenous Peoples, in order to Re-Colonize First Nations (both Treaty Bands & Non-Treaty Bands) into Indigenous Municipal Corporations using a two-track approach (ISC & CIRNAC).