RUAWAIPU The Traditional Tribe Of The East Coast  
 
 
UN Reports & Articles
 
 
 
 

This section provides documentary evidence, articles and reports.

 
  Summary  
 

Crown Law Office Report 2004 “…..in New Zealand the development of common law recognition of aboriginal rights has been slow, much slower than in Australia and Canada” . To view the Document, Click Here.

Honouring the Treaty of Waitangi – by David Williams “…. At the end of the day, the Crown continues to control the processes and the outcomes for the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims. Is this something that Maori will be prepared to accept in the long term? Others will have to answer that question. Only time will tell.” To view the Document, Click Here.

Article from Investigate Magazine February 2000 “….if a group of Australian lawyers and researchers is correct, the Treaty of Waitangi ceased to be valid on January 10, 1920, and the New Zealand Government does not, lawfully, exist.” To view the Document, Click Here.

Local Government _ paper by Tama Potaka “…. No statute identifies local government as the Crown or part of the Crown. The Constitution Act 1986 offers no definition of the Crown”. To view the Document, Click Here.

Submission on Constitutional Arrangements – Prof Noel Cox “…However, the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament was placed in doubt in 1967 by the case of R v Fineberg. Parliament’s powers were limited by s 53 of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 to the “peace, order and good government” of New Zealand. It could not be said that the New Zealand Parliament had the same powers as the United Kingdom Parliament, whose capacity was in no similar way limited. Laws could therefore be challenged as ultra vires, and the courts could be called upon to determine whether any given statute was, or was not, for the “peace, order and good government” of New Zealand.

In response to these doubts, s 2 of the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1973 was passed. This amended s 53 of the original 1852 Act, as well as repealing obsolete provisions such as reservation of Bills. Thereafter, the New Zealand Parliament possessed “full power to make laws”, a power not expressly qualified. However, if the original s 53 represented the totality of Parliament’s powers, then it is hard to see how that could have grown into “full powers” without the intervention of the United Kingdom Parliament.” To view the Document, Click Here.

Stephen Franks Article “ ……Solemn documents do not prevent the anointed from traducing indigenous rights. Article 2 of the Treaty extended to Maori (and pakeha) the promise of English property law. In the classical description, their homes would be their castles. Maori consciously chose such property rights over customary landholding patterns. They were promised certainty of boundaries, of title against conquest, transferability, and exclusive enjoyment. On their own property even the monarch could not intrude, absent hot pursuit or a warrant given by independent judges.” To view the Document, Click Here.

United Nations CERD report 2007 “..The Committee recommends that the State party consider granting the Waitangi Tribunal legally binding powers to adjudicate Treaty matters.” To view the Document, Click Here.

UN Report – Rodolpho Stavenhagen 2006 “….The Treaty of Waitangi should be entrenched constitutionally in a form that respects the pluralism of New Zealand society, creating positive recognition and meaningful provision for Maori as a distinct people, possessing an alternative system of knowledge, philosophy and law.” To view the Document, Click Here.

 
 

 
  1. [1968] NZLR 119 per Moller J.
  2. However, R v Fineberg could itself be criticised, see Philip Joseph, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (1993) 402 et seq.