Thanks very much Gary. Whilst no expert, the comity reasoning had been bothering me. Whereas your conclusion makes absolute sense, that the Tribunal is breaching its statutory role by taking an adversarial position with respect to the Minister in conflict with its legislative position as her advisor. One of those answers hiding in plain sight as it were!
The Waitangi Tribunal's increasing pretensions, or perhaps delusions of grandeur over the years as the podium of all Maori truth has clearly fooled most into believing that it is something that it isn't.
Gary, I too was deeply troubled by the “comity” proposition. Looking back over my 60 or so years in the law I can’t recall any previous suggestion of, let alone a finding that, comity should be an applicable principle in the case of an entity like the Waitangi “Tribunal”.
Yes, well is on par with pakeha not honouring the treaty and creating laws which my ancestors acquiesced to because they lacked the wherewithal to fight it. You can’t have it both ways pakeha ma.
The position you set out must be correct given separation of powers. That the raises the question as to how did the Tribunal, which presumably has lawyers, and may have access to Crown Law, came to fall into error? An answer may show a predilection on the part of the Clerisey to exercise powers it is not delegated to have. A form of administravie?
Graham, the parties before the High Court were the Tribunal regarding which the Court stated, "The Tribunal, the first respondent, abides by the decision of the Court." The protagonists were the parties who made the claim to the Tribunal and the Minister represented by the Solicitor-General, the head of the Crown Law Office. It is Crown Law which did not advance the arguments I suggest should have been advanced.
Administravie should read (Administrirovanie. A 20thC Russian doctrine that the state can be administered by admistrator's diktats. A consequence of which government under the rule of law is abrogated.
Thanks very much Gary. Whilst no expert, the comity reasoning had been bothering me. Whereas your conclusion makes absolute sense, that the Tribunal is breaching its statutory role by taking an adversarial position with respect to the Minister in conflict with its legislative position as her advisor. One of those answers hiding in plain sight as it were!
The Waitangi Tribunal's increasing pretensions, or perhaps delusions of grandeur over the years as the podium of all Maori truth has clearly fooled most into believing that it is something that it isn't.
the court of appeal disagrees with you, you racist old dinosaur.
lol, gee at least sign your name to that comment.
Khylee Quince was right about you, and remains so.
Gary, I too was deeply troubled by the “comity” proposition. Looking back over my 60 or so years in the law I can’t recall any previous suggestion of, let alone a finding that, comity should be an applicable principle in the case of an entity like the Waitangi “Tribunal”.
Exactly right Gary. Thank you for your rxvellemt summary.
Yes, well is on par with pakeha not honouring the treaty and creating laws which my ancestors acquiesced to because they lacked the wherewithal to fight it. You can’t have it both ways pakeha ma.
Your comment does not seem to bear on the legal issue that is in play here.
Neither has any argument put forward since the Treaty of Waitangi to extinguish Māori sovereignty. There is no legal basis.
The position you set out must be correct given separation of powers. That the raises the question as to how did the Tribunal, which presumably has lawyers, and may have access to Crown Law, came to fall into error? An answer may show a predilection on the part of the Clerisey to exercise powers it is not delegated to have. A form of administravie?
Graham, the parties before the High Court were the Tribunal regarding which the Court stated, "The Tribunal, the first respondent, abides by the decision of the Court." The protagonists were the parties who made the claim to the Tribunal and the Minister represented by the Solicitor-General, the head of the Crown Law Office. It is Crown Law which did not advance the arguments I suggest should have been advanced.
Administravie should read (Administrirovanie. A 20thC Russian doctrine that the state can be administered by admistrator's diktats. A consequence of which government under the rule of law is abrogated.