ARTICLE AD BOX
"Nor can I see any constitutional objection to our sovereign parliament — the very parliament that has made reference over the years to the ‘principles of the Treaty’ — taking the logical and necessary next step of explaining what those principles are.
"Nor can I see any objection to leaving the final decision on the matter to a referendum of ordinary citizens ~ whom we do, after all, trust every three years to decide on our rulers for the next Parliamentary term....
"Nevertheless, some people obviously do object to this bill. Unless they occupy a different reality, however, they must be aware that the bill is, rightly or wrongly, strongly supported by very many other New Zealanders. That is an undoubted and indisputable fact. Those New Zealanders supporting the bill may be misguided, but the fact of their support is absolutely clear. ...
"[Some objectors argue] that since governments since 1987 ‘have abdicated responsibility’ for interpreting [sections of law containing these principles], that job has been left to the courts — which has now led, allegedly, to ‘clear understandings’ of what [such a section] means. [For example,] that ‘[t]his Act shall so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty…’ ...
"[Some objectors complain] that governments have ‘abdicated responsibility’ for interpreting [these 'principles' sections], but also complain that Parliament, by this bill, is attempting to interpret the section! [They] cannot have it both ways. Surely Mr Seymour’s bill is an acceptance — not before time! — of Parliament’s responsibility to say what the principles of the Treaty are."
~ David Round from his article 'The Decline of Conservation'
.png)
English (US) ·