An excellent critique thank you John. As a non-lawyer, even I am amazed at the legally daft claims these overpaid zealots have made. The old saw of 'partnership was their most glaring error, but they seem to also have a problem with the primacy of Parliament. Oh, but the courts have worked out the principles over time, so that's fine? No, it is not. Those 'principles' are too much the creation of activist progressives, supported by a completely partisan and activist Tribunal. The Te Pati website lays out just how far these 'principles' will go if we let them.
They are entitled to their opinion, but shame on their arrogance for believing that they, by virtue of their noble status, have a greater claim to influence than the rest of us. For it is only partly a legal issue, being also tied up with social, moral and other such perspectives.
If they really believe Parliament acting to define the principles is not democratic, then how about they push for a binding referendum on this Bill? Yeah, right.
The beauty of the Bill as presented is its simplicity. Just because the second principle doesn't use the word rangatiratanga, it doesn't mean that is absent from the Treaty Principles Bill . After all, the proposed legislation says that iwi and hapu shall have all the rights that that they had at the signing of the Treaty in 1840 - ergo Article the Second and the promise of rangatiratanga. The KCs' arguments smack of massive self interest.
We dont really need to care who those KCs are, or which left wing political party they belong to, because they dont actually count for much. They are out of power.
Of the four "principles" mentioned - partnership, active protection, equity and redress - perhaps the concept of partnership is the only one that could be considered approaching a principle. The others are vehicles to achieve outcomes and of them I wonder if "equity" means something other than "equality". I support the Bill but I think the KC's should express their view which they have. Seymour wanted to promote a debate but hopefully it will go a little further than the Loudest Voices in the Room expressing a view.
Is it a "pissing competition" to become a KC? Just how are they appointed? How are they really any different from your common or garden working Lawyer?
I've got no idea how KC appointments work in practice. But an observation from my personal experience as a lawyer...in the "old" days, KCs (QCs then) were appointed primarily on legal acumen. All sorts were appointed, but they were all excellent legal minds. Nowadays, some very moderate lawyers are appointed, appointees in the last decade or so have to adhere (outwardly, at least) to Woke orthodoxy and lots of very good but heterodox lawyers miss out. J.
This letter was just virtue signalling. They can make submissions to the Select Committe via the Law Society, the Bar Association, or the Criminal Bar Association, or individually. Open Letters are so passe, Dahlink.
An excellent critique thank you John. As a non-lawyer, even I am amazed at the legally daft claims these overpaid zealots have made. The old saw of 'partnership was their most glaring error, but they seem to also have a problem with the primacy of Parliament. Oh, but the courts have worked out the principles over time, so that's fine? No, it is not. Those 'principles' are too much the creation of activist progressives, supported by a completely partisan and activist Tribunal. The Te Pati website lays out just how far these 'principles' will go if we let them.
They are entitled to their opinion, but shame on their arrogance for believing that they, by virtue of their noble status, have a greater claim to influence than the rest of us. For it is only partly a legal issue, being also tied up with social, moral and other such perspectives.
If they really believe Parliament acting to define the principles is not democratic, then how about they push for a binding referendum on this Bill? Yeah, right.
The beauty of the Bill as presented is its simplicity. Just because the second principle doesn't use the word rangatiratanga, it doesn't mean that is absent from the Treaty Principles Bill . After all, the proposed legislation says that iwi and hapu shall have all the rights that that they had at the signing of the Treaty in 1840 - ergo Article the Second and the promise of rangatiratanga. The KCs' arguments smack of massive self interest.
Cheers PW. Could it be that the KCs’ arguments are disingenuous? Perish the thought!
The Old Two Horse argument again....greed, greed drives them dumb....
I don't recall we voted for any KCs to represent us.
We dont really need to care who those KCs are, or which left wing political party they belong to, because they dont actually count for much. They are out of power.
Of the four "principles" mentioned - partnership, active protection, equity and redress - perhaps the concept of partnership is the only one that could be considered approaching a principle. The others are vehicles to achieve outcomes and of them I wonder if "equity" means something other than "equality". I support the Bill but I think the KC's should express their view which they have. Seymour wanted to promote a debate but hopefully it will go a little further than the Loudest Voices in the Room expressing a view.
Agree with all that from you Halfling. The KCs' basic sentiment is that if the great unwashed would just all agree with them then we'd have Aoteatopia
Looks like a list that should never be made Judges
A few of those KCs are Family Court lawyers. It would be interesting to see the proportion who come from that section of law.
Is it a "pissing competition" to become a KC? Just how are they appointed? How are they really any different from your common or garden working Lawyer?
Here's the technical answer David https://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/GuidlinesProtocolsArticles/KC-2024_-Guidelines-for-Candidates-20247744817.2.pdf
I've got no idea how KC appointments work in practice. But an observation from my personal experience as a lawyer...in the "old" days, KCs (QCs then) were appointed primarily on legal acumen. All sorts were appointed, but they were all excellent legal minds. Nowadays, some very moderate lawyers are appointed, appointees in the last decade or so have to adhere (outwardly, at least) to Woke orthodoxy and lots of very good but heterodox lawyers miss out. J.
Excellent. So a defining criteria is political ideology at the time of appointment.
So much for expecting well rounded, fairness, and common sense outcomes.
On every occasion this stuff intrudes into my reality, wish I had a Time Machine to enable me to go back and put a stop to it.
How are we supposed to move ahead as a nation if we do nothing but apply ourselves to the past?
This letter was just virtue signalling. They can make submissions to the Select Committe via the Law Society, the Bar Association, or the Criminal Bar Association, or individually. Open Letters are so passe, Dahlink.