Category: Constitutional Reform
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.
There is an old Chinese proverb: “When is the best time to plant a tree? Twenty years ago. When is the second best time to plant a tree? Now.” It’s the same with the Waitangi Tribunal. The best time to have shut it down was in the in 1985, before historical claims were allowed to be considered.
Last week the Waitangi Tribunal released WAI 1040 – a report into the claim by Ngapuhi and other northern iwi that their chiefs did not cede sovereignty to the Crown when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi.
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.
In the lead up to the 2014 General Election, a number of political parties were proposing changes to New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Many wanted to strengthen race-based rights and elevate them above the rights of other citizens.
I am pleased to respond to an invitation from Dr. Muriel Newman to provide some of my thoughts on the Indian rights revolution occurring in Canada, and its negative effects on Canadian Crown sovereignty, the rule of law, the Canadian economy and race relations generally between Canadian Indians and the rest of Canadians.
There are many issues of crucial importance to voters in election campaigns - particularly whether parties have the capability to manage the economy effectively. However, there is one matter that doesn’t rank highly in the polls, but is of such deep concern that it goes to the heart of who we are as New Zealanders - the issue of racial privilege and the Maori seats.
One of the most disturbing comments made by any politician in the election campaign so far was the comment by John Key when he said that, though abolition of separate Maori electorates is National Party policy, he had no plan to abolish them because such a move would provoke “hikois from hell”.
Through this Tuhoe settlement, the government is sanctioning separatism. But when it results in the bullying of Police and the disrespecting of the rule of law, is this really the future we want for New Zealand – a nation of ‘no-go’ zones, where the rule of law can no longer be guaranteed?
There is no doubt that the concept of citizens’ democracy is a powerful one. It is, after all, attributed with building Switzerland into a successful and prosperous nation. But the question that advocates should be asking right now is whether the policy of binding referenda is feasible within New Zealand’s constitutional framework?
Loading ...
