The lie
New Zealanders are being pressured into believing that the rights and obligations under the Treaty are binding in New Zealand law on the Crown, the government, local authorities, private organisations, and even individuals.
Lawyers, real estate agents, health workers and many more are being obliged to comply with the principles of the Treaty and give preferential treatment to those of Maori descent.
The current Labour government's incorporation of these requirements into legislation suggests that these mandates are part of the law and constitution of New Zealand.
It is all being done in the name of the "principles of the Treaty".
It is part of one of the biggest confidence tricks that has been played on a nation.
The truth
In some government documents there are suggestions that the Treaty is "increasingly being regarded as being part of the constitution of the New Zealand". That is totally incorrect from a legal point of view for the reasons set out below.
The important point is that the arrangement and the obligations and rights in the Treaty, are made under international law and have never been incorporated into New Zealand’s domestic law. That means that those rights and obligations are not enforceable in New Zealand courts.
The reason for this is explained in the 2021 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) document: Guidance for government agencies on practice and procedures for concluding international treaties and arrangements.
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/About-us-Corporate/Treaties-Model-instruments/International-Treaty-Making-Guide-2021.pdf
It sets out the legal requirement for making Treaty obligation binding in New Zealand law:
The obligations in treaties (where domestic implementation is required) need to be incorporated into New Zealand domestic law. It is a fundamental constitutional principle that the Executive cannot change New Zealand’s domestic law by becoming party to a treaty. If the obligations being assumed under the treaty cannot be performed under existing law, legislation will be required. As the Law Commission noted in Report 34:1
[T]he reason lies in the concept of the separation of powers: if the treaty affects rights and duties under national law, then the treaty becomes the concern of the legislature and not merely of the executive (which will have negotiated the treaty).
Unfortunately, these highly relevant judgments on the legal status of Treaty rights have been largely ignored, presumably because they undermine the narrative of Treaty activists and successive New Zealand governments.
The explanation from MFAT is based on a constitutional principle. The rights and obligations are not part of the law because they do not meet the requirements of the constitution.
In summary:- The Treaty was the heads of agreement between the Crown and Maori chiefs for the establishment of New Zealand as a new state.
- That agreement was implemented. Sovereignty was vested in the Crown under article 1. Through the exercise of its sovereignty the Crown has performed its obligations under articles 2 and 3.
- All current rights and obligations of New Zealanders arise from the constitution in which the Crown is sovereign.
- The rights and obligations in the Treaty itself have never become part of New Zealand law.
- The Treaty enabled the vesting of sovereignty in the Crown and the establishment of the constitution, but it is not part of the constitution.
- The constitution of New Zealand as set out in the Constitution Act 1986 is the legal foundation of the government of New Zealand.
- The Treaty with all of its flaws and its various disputed versions, including claims that it mandates racial preference, is no more than an historic, symbolic agreement that laid the basis for New Zealand as a sovereign country.
________
Next: 7. Principles of the Treaty: Waitangi Tribunal
https://thetreatyfacts.blogspot.com/p/7-principles-of-treaty-and-waitangi.html
