To repeat, the Treaty principles bill is constitutionally misconceived because it muddles descriptive (things as they are) and normative (things as they might/should be) norms. 🤓 Current references to Treaty principles are descriptive; ie, they signal situations where practical meaning of te Tiriti / the Treaty are to be applied or given effect to. Thus, the focus for govt/courts/tribunal is on the source meaning read in current circumstances. The Treaty principles bill is normative; ie, it purports to say what ACT thinks the meaning of te Tiriti *should* be in their eyes, eg formal equality etc. However, the bill leaves te Tiriti / the Treaty and its meaning intact, thereby creating constitutional incongruity.
If the bill was passed wouldn’t that the distinction be moot? In which case the Bill would achieve its normative end and be well conceived in its own terms?
Sean Rush
1w
But didn’t Geoffrey Palmer do the same when he determined that the principles he elicited from the courts would be applied by his govt? Two of his principles are pretty close to two of the principles in the Bill. The real issue from my perspective is that Palmer’s five principles worked together as a package whereas the Bill identifies 3 that seem to operate independently.
chris ohms
1w
The Treaty has no legal effect. It cannot oust statutory law. A ref in statute to the treaty only has force by that fact. The sooner it has gone via other statutory refs cannot be to soon, We will never have co governance as statute law overrides the treaty,
Dr Ben Payne
1w
It's easier to sell assets off to overseas investors if te Tiriti is eroded. Treaty litigation has always come through in privatisation of state asset cases. So few people seem to be seeing the real reason for the 'conversation'… As a nation you would think we would have some memory of the Fay, Richwhite et al privatisation spree, but seemingly, many of us are either goldfish or captured by the injustice of the neoliberal system… and bugger me, we seem to celebrate Fay, Richwhite and other cronies as the ‘gods of New Zealand business’ with knighthoods to boot.
Constitutional law everywhere is as much normative as it is descriptive. The term law as theology has also found favour in describing certain constitutional systems (think US rather than Iran). No constitutional arrangement should survive conflict with basic justice norms. So refusal to allow compensation for past wrongs to Maori would fall foul of corrective justice. So too would attempts to forestall affirmative action as it conflicts with equal opportunity. But if affirmative action has no end date, probably a long way into the future, that also offends equal opportunity and must not be allowed. So far court and tribunal decisions have make no inkling to addressing that. So that's one part of the bill's discussion which has merit.
We need protest this government and its harmful policies, and never give up
Pat Pilcher
1w
It also tries to grossly oversimplify an incredibly complex Issue....
this seems to me to be an important distinction - descriptive v normative -
Tama Potaka of all people should get this.
2400+ Connections I Postgraduate Lecturer I Finance and Innovation
1wThe Treaty Principles Bill 2024 (TPB) passed it's first reading in the House of Parliament on Thursday 14th November 2024. The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 is New Zealand's founding document. Written in both English and Maori, there is still disagreement about the exact meaning of the Treaty amongst Maori. Essentially the Treaty states that Maori from that date in 1840 ceded sovereignty to the British Crown in return for the protection of their land and possessions and endowment of all the rights and responsibilities of British subjects. The official wording of the Treaty of Waitangi can be read here: https://lnkd.in/gM4vGqEB. For those who want to read more on the Treaty Principles Bill 2024, it can be read here: https://lnkd.in/gcHpZTnV. Despite a law passed in 1975 which attempted to define or direct how the Treaty should be interpreted for land claims, the official interpretation of the Treaty and how it is to be applied by government has changed and evolved through case law. It is this changing interpretation that the current 2024 bill has been tabled in parliament to respond to and clarify.