The current Realm of New Zealand remains in a colonial relationship to Britain and its government is based on British statutes, such as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Succession as well as Hobson's declaration of sovereignty. The Realm mimics British institutions of government and incorporates British common law. As far as that goes, the Treaty of Waitangi need not exist. Strictly speaking it is not a founding document, yet alone the founding document, of the Realm of New Zealand. However there is a popular feeling that it should be, a great majority of New Zealanders accept it as such, and therefore New Zealand governments and judiciary are no longer able to dismiss it as a "simple nullity". The Realm is walking a fine line between the die hard colonialist position and a potentially revolutionary nationalism which has coalesced around certain interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi. If the nationalist side becomes dominant, then the Bill of Rights, the Act of Succession and other "founding documents" of the Realm will become redundant, to be superseded by Te Whakaputanga and/or Te Tiriti. However the latter two documents will not be adequate to establish a new constitutional basis for the nation and at the point where the Realm of New Zealand ceases to exist as a British colonial entity, the nation state of Aotearoa will have to fashion for itself a formal written constitution to serve as its basic law. The relationship between te Whakaputanga and a constitution of Aotearoa will parallel the relationship between the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 and its 1787 Constitution.
In short, the idea of what constitutes a "founding document" depends entirely on one's perspective and allegiance. Despite what the constitutional lawyers might tell them, most New Zealanders do not regard the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, or the Act of Succession as their founding documents. A minority on the nationalist side stake their claim on Te Whakaputanga, and a great mass in the middle settle on the Treaty of Waitangi. It is messy situation lacking legal rigour, but over the next few decades a clear picture will emerge out of the confusion of views. In the end our idea of what deserves to be called "the founding document" of Aotearoa will be based not so much on what happened to us in the past as on where we want to be going in the future.
Great comments, thank you Geoff. I'm unable to predict exactly what people will want as grounds for a future constitution, or how we'll get there. Cheers.
Thanks Grant. Really good to be reminded of this. It strikes me that the enduring nature of 1688 and the Treaty, reflect that both were a response to the impact of civil conflict and disruption. It is unlikely that those Rangatira who signed the Treaty with the British, would have done so if it had not been for the devastating effects of the inter-iwi wars in the previous 30 years - it was a step to an enduring framework to manage British settlement. In 1688 James walking away from the throne for his son-in-law William of Orange, in no small part reflected the terror and dislocation of the English Civil Wars of the 1640s, Military government of the 1650s (and probably that James father - King Charles 1 - was executed). For both the Treaty and 1688 there was an acute understanding that constitutional arrangements matter and when you toss these aside bad stuff can happen. Perhaps this is a factor in why both of these documents have endured and still have resonance today (and why we should be careful with antics that might push these aside for political gain).
Hi Mark. That's a good comparison point to make. Such documents represent settlements of a sort, no matter how imperfect. Same with Magna Carta. It's most important not to push such historical documents aside, but rather to understand their context and how their significance develops. Cheers.
Hi Grant. Yep, I noticed that assumption too, in some submissions.
It did surprise me because the Treaty is not one of New Zealand’s constitutional documents. We are fond of it, it’s ours, and we are now debating what we might choose for it to mean in our community. But we are not there yet.
My view has been that the treaty permits, but doesn’t constitute, a government. It took other documents and actions to authorise a government and then a parliament. My lectures on the topic are on my YouTube channel
Thanks, Grant. That makes sense. Kāwanatanga and the reference to Ingirangi tikanga certainly support the enabling of government. But putting together a system of government—that’s where the constitution comes in, through actual constitutional documents. The Treaty accepts the principle of governance, but it’s the Constitution Act and other legal developments that construct the system. I’ll check out your lectures.
This past select committee report is really useful. Its Appendix B is a great outline of the events and documents that constituted NZ government as we know it now. "All the stuff They don't tell you about".
Just gotta say that not all of us are ‘fond of the Treaty’, at least not as it is now interpreted. In reality, it was hastily composed and simple document clarifying 3 simple points. Crown sovereign (despite the ignorant fools saying it ain’t), common law land rights would now take effect, and citizens of New Zealand would share equal rights. No partnership, no ‘equity’ nor protection obligations. Moreover, it served its purpose as it was written for those Maori alive at the time of signing. It now belongs in the museum and nothing more. It certainly ain’t a founding document for our nation, at best it’s an agreement to clarify a couple of key points. Grant’s article was an interesting read however and highlights how much we owe to English history. Sadly the current Govt is ‘rudely laying a hand on English ways’ (to paraphrase Kipling) and destroying a once great culture.
Pandemic notwithstanding, I always had a sneaking suspicion the tidal wave of support for Labour in 2020 was due to the "reeferendum" and their subsequent decline came from their disregard of the tide of public opinion - on this and many other matters.
Recently, Gandalf, a 66 year old man from Northland in the horticulture business (for which he paid taxes), was attacked by vicious thugs with sledgehammers and axes, waving pieces of paper signed by a Judge - which negated his rights under the Bill of Rights 1688, I reckon.
"Grants of forfeitures: That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
The direction of governance has been steered by our country's Parliament's participation in international agreements (and commercial contracts) which have been signed without the ratification of the people and which may not be in our best interests.
The Bill of Rights 1688: "New oaths of allegiance, etc: ...Supremacy
I, A B, do swear that I do ...declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, State, or potentate has, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."
I have a newspaper cutting from early 1998 by a NZPA Staff Correspondent, London about: "a leaked World Health Organisation report which has shown cannabis to be less harmful than alcohol and cigarette smoking." The truth about cannabis was known decades before this, but the opinions of US and UN representatives have been given "supremacy" within this realm by our Parliamentary representatives. Does the Bill of Rights get anything more than lip-service, now?
It isn't taken to the letter, Sandra. The main enduring points were freedom of speech in the House and preventing monarchs from making law without parliament. Like the Treaty's Crown pre-emption provision, a lot's forgotten, or overridden by new law.
The current Realm of New Zealand remains in a colonial relationship to Britain and its government is based on British statutes, such as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Succession as well as Hobson's declaration of sovereignty. The Realm mimics British institutions of government and incorporates British common law. As far as that goes, the Treaty of Waitangi need not exist. Strictly speaking it is not a founding document, yet alone the founding document, of the Realm of New Zealand. However there is a popular feeling that it should be, a great majority of New Zealanders accept it as such, and therefore New Zealand governments and judiciary are no longer able to dismiss it as a "simple nullity". The Realm is walking a fine line between the die hard colonialist position and a potentially revolutionary nationalism which has coalesced around certain interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi. If the nationalist side becomes dominant, then the Bill of Rights, the Act of Succession and other "founding documents" of the Realm will become redundant, to be superseded by Te Whakaputanga and/or Te Tiriti. However the latter two documents will not be adequate to establish a new constitutional basis for the nation and at the point where the Realm of New Zealand ceases to exist as a British colonial entity, the nation state of Aotearoa will have to fashion for itself a formal written constitution to serve as its basic law. The relationship between te Whakaputanga and a constitution of Aotearoa will parallel the relationship between the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 and its 1787 Constitution.
In short, the idea of what constitutes a "founding document" depends entirely on one's perspective and allegiance. Despite what the constitutional lawyers might tell them, most New Zealanders do not regard the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, or the Act of Succession as their founding documents. A minority on the nationalist side stake their claim on Te Whakaputanga, and a great mass in the middle settle on the Treaty of Waitangi. It is messy situation lacking legal rigour, but over the next few decades a clear picture will emerge out of the confusion of views. In the end our idea of what deserves to be called "the founding document" of Aotearoa will be based not so much on what happened to us in the past as on where we want to be going in the future.
Great comments, thank you Geoff. I'm unable to predict exactly what people will want as grounds for a future constitution, or how we'll get there. Cheers.
Thanks Grant. Really good to be reminded of this. It strikes me that the enduring nature of 1688 and the Treaty, reflect that both were a response to the impact of civil conflict and disruption. It is unlikely that those Rangatira who signed the Treaty with the British, would have done so if it had not been for the devastating effects of the inter-iwi wars in the previous 30 years - it was a step to an enduring framework to manage British settlement. In 1688 James walking away from the throne for his son-in-law William of Orange, in no small part reflected the terror and dislocation of the English Civil Wars of the 1640s, Military government of the 1650s (and probably that James father - King Charles 1 - was executed). For both the Treaty and 1688 there was an acute understanding that constitutional arrangements matter and when you toss these aside bad stuff can happen. Perhaps this is a factor in why both of these documents have endured and still have resonance today (and why we should be careful with antics that might push these aside for political gain).
Hi Mark. That's a good comparison point to make. Such documents represent settlements of a sort, no matter how imperfect. Same with Magna Carta. It's most important not to push such historical documents aside, but rather to understand their context and how their significance develops. Cheers.
Hi Grant. Yep, I noticed that assumption too, in some submissions.
It did surprise me because the Treaty is not one of New Zealand’s constitutional documents. We are fond of it, it’s ours, and we are now debating what we might choose for it to mean in our community. But we are not there yet.
My view has been that the treaty permits, but doesn’t constitute, a government. It took other documents and actions to authorise a government and then a parliament. My lectures on the topic are on my YouTube channel
Thanks, Grant. That makes sense. Kāwanatanga and the reference to Ingirangi tikanga certainly support the enabling of government. But putting together a system of government—that’s where the constitution comes in, through actual constitutional documents. The Treaty accepts the principle of governance, but it’s the Constitution Act and other legal developments that construct the system. I’ll check out your lectures.
https://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cacrep05.pdf
This past select committee report is really useful. Its Appendix B is a great outline of the events and documents that constituted NZ government as we know it now. "All the stuff They don't tell you about".
Thanks Grant, this is wonderful.
Also I found your lectures on YouTube.
Just gotta say that not all of us are ‘fond of the Treaty’, at least not as it is now interpreted. In reality, it was hastily composed and simple document clarifying 3 simple points. Crown sovereign (despite the ignorant fools saying it ain’t), common law land rights would now take effect, and citizens of New Zealand would share equal rights. No partnership, no ‘equity’ nor protection obligations. Moreover, it served its purpose as it was written for those Maori alive at the time of signing. It now belongs in the museum and nothing more. It certainly ain’t a founding document for our nation, at best it’s an agreement to clarify a couple of key points. Grant’s article was an interesting read however and highlights how much we owe to English history. Sadly the current Govt is ‘rudely laying a hand on English ways’ (to paraphrase Kipling) and destroying a once great culture.
Pandemic notwithstanding, I always had a sneaking suspicion the tidal wave of support for Labour in 2020 was due to the "reeferendum" and their subsequent decline came from their disregard of the tide of public opinion - on this and many other matters.
Recently, Gandalf, a 66 year old man from Northland in the horticulture business (for which he paid taxes), was attacked by vicious thugs with sledgehammers and axes, waving pieces of paper signed by a Judge - which negated his rights under the Bill of Rights 1688, I reckon.
"Grants of forfeitures: That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"
The direction of governance has been steered by our country's Parliament's participation in international agreements (and commercial contracts) which have been signed without the ratification of the people and which may not be in our best interests.
The Bill of Rights 1688: "New oaths of allegiance, etc: ...Supremacy
I, A B, do swear that I do ...declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, State, or potentate has, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."
I have a newspaper cutting from early 1998 by a NZPA Staff Correspondent, London about: "a leaked World Health Organisation report which has shown cannabis to be less harmful than alcohol and cigarette smoking." The truth about cannabis was known decades before this, but the opinions of US and UN representatives have been given "supremacy" within this realm by our Parliamentary representatives. Does the Bill of Rights get anything more than lip-service, now?
It isn't taken to the letter, Sandra. The main enduring points were freedom of speech in the House and preventing monarchs from making law without parliament. Like the Treaty's Crown pre-emption provision, a lot's forgotten, or overridden by new law.