-
-
Donate – Register for Newsletter
-
Weekly Poll
Loading ...-
-
Your Views
-
-
-
Social Media
-
-
-
NZCPR CAMPAIGNS
-
Anthony Willy
The official British Government position concerning who exercised sovereignty over New Zealand at the beginning of the ninetieth century is summarised in the instructions given by Lord Normanby to his appointed Consul Captain William Hobson before he sailed for New Zealand on the 25th August 1839.
The latest decision of the Supreme Court in is a fine contribution to the ongoing saga. It is between Paki and four others against the Attorney General and two interveners (parties who want to be heard) Mighty River Power and the Te Kahui Trustees. Judgment was given on the 29th August 2014.
Since writing the article on the Rule of law and Maori privilege a number of people have asked what is this Rule of law and why does it have any significance in the modern New Zealand world. It is a good question...
The Rule of Law embodies the notion that freedoms are protected not by the dicktat of any person or collection of people, but by the Law to which all, high or low born, are subject. This notion is so central to the way we order our society that it is now little discussed, and one suspects no longer widely understood. It is a safeguard of great antiquity.
This paper is concerned solely with the question of whether or not there is anything in the Treaty of Waitangi that requires it to be incorporated into a written constitution, and having the effect of conferring sovereignty in and over New Zealand on twenty first century Maori.
The Constitutional cake is finite. To increase the power of one group will diminish the rights of all other groups. The creation of one privileged minority group with either powers of veto, or to extract rent from necessary economic developments will damage New Zealand international competitiveness, suppress wealth creation, and give rise to widespread social resentment.
