top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

AARON SPENCER: The problem with Principles


“All this turmoil, because of a single word?” This may be the bemused reaction of some future scholar engaged in reviewing the course of New Zealand history as it occurred in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The word in question being, of course, ‘principles’. 


Or, to be specific; ‘Principles’ - with a capital P.  


At first glance the word in question appears not to contain any incendiary properties. But it is this word, used several times in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which is proving to be a source of great vexation as New Zealand increasingly finds itself in the midst of a blanket of constitutional fog.


It can be reasoned that the word ‘principles’ equates to ‘the fundamental truths’ i.e. the real substance, or gist, or essence; the nub of something. If we are to come up with a short summation of the essence of the Treaty, distilled from its three articles, we can say that it conferred British citizenship on the Māori people and afforded them the protection of the British Empire, it confirmed their property rights while allowing for land sales to settlers, and it allowed for the establishment of the British system of government and laws in this country. Māori society continued to order itself as per the Iwi and Hapu tribal structures, while acceding to the overarching sovereignty and governance of Queen Victoria and her government which was thereafter established in New Zealand.


All the salient points i.e. ‘principles’ that we need to take from the Treaty are therefore known. When the essence of something is ‘as written’, there is no need for further extrapolation or codification.


 So far we have been talking of ‘principles’; it is a set of codified ‘Principles’ (capital P) that are the 'bridge too far'. And it is the unfortunate appearance in the 1975 legislation of Principles with a capital P that has invited - if not necessitated - further extrapolation, with the process of codification having enabled a journey into speculation and abstraction, and the adoption of certain subjective opinions of those doing the journeying. This flight of fancy, embarked upon by Judges and academics, has in turn given us the ‘3 P’s’, which have found their way into the fabric of the Public service and local government and corporate entities. These 3 P’s (Partnership, Participation, and Protection) are also clearly an alliterative extension of ‘Principles’. One can surmise that if the pertinent word had been 'Fundamentals' instead of 'Principles' then we would probably be referring to the '3 F's'.  


Each step along this path - from the introduction of the word into legislation in 1975, to the purported need to then codify a set of Principles, to the creation of these Principles themselves - has taken us further from the Treaty ‘as it is written’.


 When it comes to the actions of Crown entities where they potentially conflict with Māori (or indeed, any citizens) private property rights, discussion between the parties concerned takes place to determine a way forward, with the aim of finding a mutually satisfactory outcome. This would be the case whether we were to utilise the Treaty ‘as written’, or if we were to utilise codified ‘Principles’. The existence of ‘Principles’ does not provide extra clarity to the matter one iota: in New Zealand the property rights of all citizens are enshrined in law. Much of the Treaty is today rendered superfluous simply by the act of it having been signed - becoming at once the foundation of a nation thereby established. Where once this document was required to confer citizenship upon the existing population, today the descendants of the Māori signatories are citizens at the moment of their birth. Similarly, where once an agreement was needed to establish property rights, today the law recognises the property rights of all citizens.

 

In conclusion, the case for utilising the Treaty purely 'as it is written' was emphatically stated by the Māori King Tūheitia in a speech at Turangawaewae earlier this year:

“There’s no Principles; the Treaty is written. That’s it.”


Aaron Spencer is a writer and truth seeker from the Bay of Plenty

 
 
 

112 Comments


zekewulfe
zekewulfe
Sep 08, 2024

Are we as contributors witnessing a unaltered reality here, or are we being foxed by new age f-wits

Edited
Like
zekewulfe
zekewulfe
Sep 09, 2024
Replying to

I see.... no fear huh,

I would still be hesitant about where my site contact is being redirected and into what and or which domain has interest.

It appears a log on with requests for further confirmation are not a red flag... for some folk.

Edited
Like

zekewulfe
zekewulfe
Sep 07, 2024

this site is stuffed.... it never functions the same way twice. Perhaps it has joined up with the new way forward.

Either there is a desire within, with a will to fix it, or it will go the way of all political meanderings.....and politically targeted media bullshit...... oblivion!

Edited
Like
Peter Y
Peter Y
Sep 07, 2024
Replying to

Yep, aside form trying to get a right to reply or post, when you like something it records it, then disappears. next time you look. I think it must need a whakanoa (tapu lifting) ceremony? Maybe the equivalent of an embedded interweb taniwha has been inflicted - given much of the sentiment herein?

Like

This comment was deleted.
Peter out..
Sep 10, 2024
Replying to

When you define “needs”, I will show you why societal care channels resources towards females, the elderly, sportspersons, Anglicans, farmers, disabled, Samoa and Māori. Everybody has different needs, so to base care only on “specific genetic traits” is frankly JUST ludicrous.

Edited
Like

This comment was deleted.
zekewulfe
zekewulfe
Sep 09, 2024
Replying to

This would be the third time I have replied to this post.... it keeps on disappearing.... now a stoopid site and getting worse. Wots going on?

Like

This comment was deleted.
Charles
Sep 08, 2024
Replying to

Why do you only question “Māori land” when there are two dozen categories of non-rateable land? I think you are being discriminatory when you constantly identify Māori resources yet ignore other relevant groups’ assets.

Like

©2021 by Bassett, Brash & Hide. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page