Can these incompatible ideas coexist? Not just in society but in our laws, institutions, and, perhaps most importantly, within ourselves? I believe they do, they should, and they can.
As someone who’s studied Treaty of Waitangi History and Subsequent law/jurisprudence quite extensively, I’ll admit I’m a bit in two minds about this Bill.
Where the supporters of the bill do sort of have a point is that the treaty jurisprudence, including the principles are the result of extensive common law development and beaurcrartic decisions, rather than an official democratic process. For example of course, the treaty principles themselves are a creation of a court case in the late 1980s, and are not officially set in out legalisation anywhere. Ultimately in our constitutional arrangements parliament is sovereign, rule of law must prevail (not rule of lawyers!).
Ultimately I do think much of the current treaty jurisprudence does need to be defined more clearly in acts of parliament, otherwise it will be perceived (and I will stress the word perceived), as ‘special right for Maori’.
I’m not saying by the way the the act parties bill is the best way to achieve this, but it is asking a question that does need to be asked and ultimately answered (I don’t have a clear answer myself by the way).
I wish more people, especially Maori, would come forth with a suggested rewriting of the Principles put forward in the bill. I would love to see that kind of detail - what the Principles really should be.
For example, I would suggest expanding Principle 2 of the bill to have some language about what we agree "tino rangatiratanga" of "taonga katoa" means, so we hold on to this valuable concept in a way that makes sense in 2024 and is open to future understandings.
But for that, the opposition would need to engage with the Bill, and I can understand why they will not.
It looks like a nice day for the hikoi, without rain although a little on the chilly side. I look forward to reading Matthew Wright’s book. I’m reading Ewen McQueen at the moment. I don’t share the goosebump-sense of import of this event, but I do think that there is great value in learning, and considering together, what good paths we can have as a community going forward into our shared future.
"Grappling with the Treaty and policies like the Treaty Principles Bill demands that we embrace tension rather than undermine and punish each other. It asks us to hold space for competing truths, confront the discomfort of complexity, and resist oversimplification for everyone’s sake."
Beautifully said, and mirrors my own intense journey these past few weeks. I tried to figure it all out with my logical brain, but came to realize that what I really need to do is live in "the discomfort of complexity" - so thank you for representing that!
a brilliant read. Thank you Natalia. All kiwis could read this. I agree, I am a bit of both.
Bodies are held together by tension. Motives are a big thing here for me, as well as the health of on going reflection and debate. I don't trust ACTs and others intensions as far as purity and good goes......and that is my issue, as well as justice.
As someone who’s studied Treaty of Waitangi History and Subsequent law/jurisprudence quite extensively, I’ll admit I’m a bit in two minds about this Bill.
Where the supporters of the bill do sort of have a point is that the treaty jurisprudence, including the principles are the result of extensive common law development and beaurcrartic decisions, rather than an official democratic process. For example of course, the treaty principles themselves are a creation of a court case in the late 1980s, and are not officially set in out legalisation anywhere. Ultimately in our constitutional arrangements parliament is sovereign, rule of law must prevail (not rule of lawyers!).
Ultimately I do think much of the current treaty jurisprudence does need to be defined more clearly in acts of parliament, otherwise it will be perceived (and I will stress the word perceived), as ‘special right for Maori’.
I’m not saying by the way the the act parties bill is the best way to achieve this, but it is asking a question that does need to be asked and ultimately answered (I don’t have a clear answer myself by the way).
I wish more people, especially Maori, would come forth with a suggested rewriting of the Principles put forward in the bill. I would love to see that kind of detail - what the Principles really should be.
For example, I would suggest expanding Principle 2 of the bill to have some language about what we agree "tino rangatiratanga" of "taonga katoa" means, so we hold on to this valuable concept in a way that makes sense in 2024 and is open to future understandings.
But for that, the opposition would need to engage with the Bill, and I can understand why they will not.
It looks like a nice day for the hikoi, without rain although a little on the chilly side. I look forward to reading Matthew Wright’s book. I’m reading Ewen McQueen at the moment. I don’t share the goosebump-sense of import of this event, but I do think that there is great value in learning, and considering together, what good paths we can have as a community going forward into our shared future.
Well said, Natalia.
For a thoughtful and emotion-free reconciliation of the bill and the treaty, read “A Halfling’s” piece on this, the Substack, platform
"Grappling with the Treaty and policies like the Treaty Principles Bill demands that we embrace tension rather than undermine and punish each other. It asks us to hold space for competing truths, confront the discomfort of complexity, and resist oversimplification for everyone’s sake."
Beautifully said, and mirrors my own intense journey these past few weeks. I tried to figure it all out with my logical brain, but came to realize that what I really need to do is live in "the discomfort of complexity" - so thank you for representing that!
a brilliant read. Thank you Natalia. All kiwis could read this. I agree, I am a bit of both.
Bodies are held together by tension. Motives are a big thing here for me, as well as the health of on going reflection and debate. I don't trust ACTs and others intensions as far as purity and good goes......and that is my issue, as well as justice.