Its the strangest thing. In the past weeks, the PM, Attorney General & Justice Minister have unambiguously signed up to the First, Second and Third Principles in ACT's Treaty Principles Bill. During Question Time in Parliament, Luxon declared, "The Crown is Sovereign". That is simply repeating ACT's First Principle.
Then Justice Minister Goldsmith stated that "over the past several decades, Parliament has not been clear about what specific Treaty provisions meant .. That’s left courts, agencies .. and councils to free-range what it means .. creating uncertainty .. we’re trying to honor Treaty commitments, while at the same time, never losing sight of the basic expectations of people .. to have equality before the law.” But that is a simple repetition of ACT's Second Principle. It "respects and protects" the rights that iwi had when they signed the Treaty, agreeing for them to be specified in Parliament's legislation and settlements, whilst not losing sight of the need for everyone to be equal before the law.
Then, arising from last week's "prosecution guidelines" controversy whereby the Solicitor General instructed prosecutors to consider the defendant's race before deciding whether to lay charges, Attorney General Judith Collins intervened. She stated, "The law needs to be blind as to people’s ethnicity .. I do not agree people should be treated differently based on their ethnicity”. But that is simply repeating ACT's Third "without discrimination" Principle.
In other words, the PM, Attorney General and Justice Minister have together stated, in no uncertain terms, that the country must abide by what ACT calls its First, Second and Third Treaty Principles. At the same time those three have also sworn they will not support ACT's Principles' Bill. It's a remarkable situation, whereby we have the highest ranking National politicians, including the nation's two biggest law chiefs, endorsing ACT's principles as the most important legal principles in the land, whilst at the same time insisting they should not become the law of the land. What can this mean? Either that the PM, Justice Minister and Attorney General say things they don't believe, in which case they're dishonest - or should they happen to believe what they're saying, then won't stand up for their convictions.
Sources:
Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. Rob blogs at Down to Earth Kiwi