From Kiwiblog – obviously.
Another different tact and one which may help those of you who have not yet submitted formulate and organise your thoughts.
My submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
I support the principles of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, but suggest an alternate way to achieve the desired outcomes.
I think it is useful to approach the issues this bill covers in steps. The first step is whether it would be a good idea for there to be a legislative definition of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
I think Parliament would be derelict in its duty, not to provide a legislative defintion. If Parliament is to pass dozens of laws referring to the Principles, it should provide certainity on what it means in doing so.
The next step is whether the three proposed principles are the correct interpretation of the intention of those who signed the Treaty. This is very challenging, as there is legitimate disagreement and debate on this. The historical record can be intepreted in multiple ways, and the dominant interpretation has changed massively over time from Sir Apirana Ngata to today. This actually makes the case for why there should be a legislative definition.
While I personally like the proposed principles in this bill, I favour certainity over personal preference. I would challenge opponents of the current version of the biill to propose alternate wording for the principles, rather than have Parliament provide no guidance at all. Then there could be an informed debate between two versions of the Principles.
I would much rather have a legislative definition of the Principles that I 75% agree with, than no legislative definition at all.
An alternative approach to this issue, if providing a legislative definition of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is not possible is to take the principles of this bill and entrench them in the Bill of Rights Act as principles of a liberal democratic country – and note that no interpretation of the Treaty can override entrenched human rights such as equality of suffrage.
A possible wording could be:
No policy or action by the Government (including Treaty of Waitangi issues) can over-ride the following:
* The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws in the best interests of everyone; and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
* Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights including equality of suffrage and the rights of Citizenship by birth.
NB – Submissions are open until 11.59 pm Tuesday. You can submit here.
DAVID ALSO REMINDS YOU THAT SUBMISSIONS CLOSE AT 11.59PM TOMORROW 7 JANUARY 2025 AND PROVIDES A LINK TO HELP YOU GET STARTED.
SO GET TO IT.
As a bonus here are thoughts from a regular Kiwiblog commenter:
`Wiser minds than mine will get this worded properly but the important parts of this are – if there are principles then Parliament must define them, sovereignty rests with Parliament (replaces the amorphous Crown?), there is no partnership in the sense of cogovernance, and finally nothing in the Treaty permits any racial preference ie no Maori DVCs, Maori wards or Maori tribe nominees. I’ve made my submission. Pity Luxon has been so emphatic.‘
UPDATE – SUBMISSION BY A PART MAORI GENTLEMAN
No Minister 
Farrar loves the feeling of that number eight wire on his sphincter when he straddles it.
Tim’s submission in the link is a lot more direct than Davids waffle.
The country needs more part Maori who are on the General Roll speaking up.
I’m part maori and I have already done a submission.
I didn’t know the part maori bit but I thought you would have submitted.
I hope you made that point.
I thought it might be interesting to cross post my Kiwiblog comment here with some slight editing.
Anyone who wishes to solve this current problem by replacing The Crown with The parliament / a Republic / Senate or what ever is making a MASSIVE risk and taking a MASSIVE step into the dark.
What is often forgotten is that the constitutional arrangement that we have inherited from the British, the arrangement between Crown and Parliament was the hard fought solution to a very real problem.
Basically the problem of Oliver Cromwell, men like him and a very bloody civil war. Don’t say that could never happen in NZ because it certainly could (include the colonial Land wars and its happened already).
The Crown gives us 1 executive authority standing at the tip of the pyramid that can authorize the rest to move, that’s why we have 1 General commanding the army in the field and 1 Captain in command of the ship.
A parliament can be spilt, a parliament is DESIGNED to be split. How many parties and how many factions within those parties do we have now? Get a 51% majority stitched together from 2-3 factions and you have supreme executive power perhaps led by one talented and ambitious psychopath or fanatic (Oliver Cromwell).
What’s to stop him? Parliamentary procedure? Once you have that majority you can rewrite the procedure and purge the parliament (again Oliver Cromwell).
I urge everyone here to follow the precautionary principle of “Chesterton’s fence”, if you are strolling along a paddock and you see a fence that has been put up by someone for some purpose but you and don’t really know why, LEAVE IT ALONE.
Butchering up our constitutional arrangements which are centuries old to solve this current problem is like smashing up and burning down your house to solve termites and mice
Interesting thoughts Jake.
I take it you do not favour New Zealand becoming a Republic.
I am no expert but, I do not see the Treaty Principles as proposed affecting the Crown relationship.
No, I don’t favor New Zealand becoming a Republic, although it has been raised. However there is a constitutional problem here but it is a relatively small one for now. People still live well in New Zealand and although the government is often weak and ineffective it’s not a tyranny. We don’t need a radical change to solve a small problem.
Although I favor a parliamentary monarchy that doesn’t mean that New Zealand can’t radically change its relationship with the House of Windsor (Saxe-Coburg Gotha), dynasties have changed before. Heck, when the Treaty of Waitangai was signed it was with the House of Hanover, and The Crown of New Zealand is not the Crown of England, they are just currently held by the same person.