Treaty principles

A post at Liam Hehir’s blog called Alan Smithee writes:

In contrast to Act’s claims, their proposed treaty principles are not fully faithful to either the text or intent of the original Treaty of Waitangi. They’re revisionist. When Act says “the intention of the Treaty Principles Bill is to establish in law that the principles of the Treaty are what the three articles of the Treaty actually say”, it’s outright political theatre.

What Act’s critics appear to be unaware of is that their preferred treaty principles – the “status quo” principles – are equally revisionist. When Toitū Te Tiriti says their opposition to the proposed principles referendum is to affirm “the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as enduring and everlasting”, it’s also political theatre.

How so? Well, no treaty principles exist that are not revisionist. The very idea that we need to say things that the treaty does not actually say to make the treaty more faithful to itself is illogical. 

This is a very important point – all principles that people claim are Treaty principles are revisionist.

For a nation to have principles to live by requires ongoing, good faith debate and consent to live by outcomes fairly reached. That’ll never happen so long as all sides do not deign to acknowledge that there is a debate at all and instead of claim to be the sole champions and interpreters of a perfect truth set in stone in 1840.

Act’s three proposed treaty principles are that the government has the right to govern, that the authority and ownership of land and property of all of us is protected, and that all of us are equal under the law.

The real question is not whether that’s what our tīpuna established in 1840, it’s whether that’s what we want for Aotearoa New Zealand now.

I like ACT’s three principles. However I don’t think they are principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I think they are principles of liberal democracy and would support them being in an entrenched Bill of Rights.