I have noticed a typo in "Dame Sian Elias gives a vivid description of the subsistence of this state in some parts of New Zealand post-1940, at page 6 of the speech referenced in Endnote 10." 1940 should be 1840.
Respect for replying Gary - to expand - the article states: "The New Zealand Council of Legal Education (NZCLE) requires that from Semester 1, 2025 te ao Māori and tikanga Māori content and assessment will be compulsory for all law students in the core courses that form the backbone of the Bachelor of Laws degree in NZ."
I'd also like to comment on the paragraph above, "a regime which would impose beliefs, principles of a spiritual nature, a way of life of some of our people, on the nation as a whole is a completely different proposition. Beliefs and principles of a spiritual nature are not law. The way of life of some is not part of the law of the land." It is already a fact, and established in law and custom, that Christian beliefs, though a way of life for only some among us, nevertheless are established in law: as at the Royal Titles Act 1974, which establishes the Monarch of NZ as 'Defender of the Faith'; at the Coronation Oath (now I haven't studied the Coronation Oath of King Charles III, but I have studied that of His Dear Mother, Elizabeth II), in which the Monarch undertook to uphold 'the Laws of God' (clearly understood according to the Church of England); and as also established in the public observance of a small number of traditional Christian feast days as public holidays (there are only 3 such days at present). And also, at least up until recently, the custom of saying an [Anglican] prayer at the opening of sessions of the House of Representatives. These established aspects of our polity of course do not impose Christian beliefs upon everyone, but they do to some extent at least necessitate a modicum of respect from everyone, in recognition of the foundations of our society and civilization..... Is it not so,?
I'm very appreciative for this analysis of why 'tikanga' is not law. It would become quite awkward, for instance, if 'utu' as defined under some traditional understandings of 'tikanga' would require eating the flesh of one's vanquished enemies.....(it certainly was considered to be 'the right action' in times past) and that this were to be imposed or allowed by the Supreme Court of NZ in 2024, or 2040.... However, the Statement of Tikanga does allow for the ad hoc adjustment of 'tikanga' to changing circumstances.... but upon what basis is not clear....
There is a further issue here. According to Pou Temara (Professor of Māori Studies at Waikato), tikanga iho matua (core tikanga) has "come down from the gods". But do we want (and have we agreed) to be governed by practices that are thought to be of divine origin? Could such practices be challenged? Should laws not be based on the consent of the people who are affected by them?
As noted in another comment above, I would say, Yes, we are governed by Divine Law, in as much as the Monarch in Right of NZ bears the title 'Defender of the [Christian] faith' (Royal Titles Act 1974); and in certain aspects of the Coronation Oath, by which our Monarch was crowned by an Archbishop of the Church of England. Thus, it was not a matter of personal choice at all, nor any democratic choice, but it is bequeathed upon us by the mere fact of our birth as subjects of Her Majesty (heirs and successors..., or predecessor(s), if born before 1953...), and our common heritage as heirs of 'British civilization,' of which the Christian faith is a fundamental of our law and society....? You may wish to say that there are other aspects that form the grounds of our polity, law and cultural inheritance (such as Whig beliefs, liberal beliefs, et c.), however, we surely cannot deny that Christianity is a fundamental part of our common history....and remains so, does it not?
I have noticed a typo in "Dame Sian Elias gives a vivid description of the subsistence of this state in some parts of New Zealand post-1940, at page 6 of the speech referenced in Endnote 10." 1940 should be 1840.
Thomas, you are absolutely correct.
Thanks Gary. Great article.
Update - https://www.aut.ac.nz/news/stories/justice-whata-leads-korero-on-he-poutama
How is the pursuit going vs the installing by the radical Maori lawyers?
Rob, that's a bit to cryptic for my comprehension.
Respect for replying Gary - to expand - the article states: "The New Zealand Council of Legal Education (NZCLE) requires that from Semester 1, 2025 te ao Māori and tikanga Māori content and assessment will be compulsory for all law students in the core courses that form the backbone of the Bachelor of Laws degree in NZ."
I'd also like to comment on the paragraph above, "a regime which would impose beliefs, principles of a spiritual nature, a way of life of some of our people, on the nation as a whole is a completely different proposition. Beliefs and principles of a spiritual nature are not law. The way of life of some is not part of the law of the land." It is already a fact, and established in law and custom, that Christian beliefs, though a way of life for only some among us, nevertheless are established in law: as at the Royal Titles Act 1974, which establishes the Monarch of NZ as 'Defender of the Faith'; at the Coronation Oath (now I haven't studied the Coronation Oath of King Charles III, but I have studied that of His Dear Mother, Elizabeth II), in which the Monarch undertook to uphold 'the Laws of God' (clearly understood according to the Church of England); and as also established in the public observance of a small number of traditional Christian feast days as public holidays (there are only 3 such days at present). And also, at least up until recently, the custom of saying an [Anglican] prayer at the opening of sessions of the House of Representatives. These established aspects of our polity of course do not impose Christian beliefs upon everyone, but they do to some extent at least necessitate a modicum of respect from everyone, in recognition of the foundations of our society and civilization..... Is it not so,?
I'm very appreciative for this analysis of why 'tikanga' is not law. It would become quite awkward, for instance, if 'utu' as defined under some traditional understandings of 'tikanga' would require eating the flesh of one's vanquished enemies.....(it certainly was considered to be 'the right action' in times past) and that this were to be imposed or allowed by the Supreme Court of NZ in 2024, or 2040.... However, the Statement of Tikanga does allow for the ad hoc adjustment of 'tikanga' to changing circumstances.... but upon what basis is not clear....
There is a further issue here. According to Pou Temara (Professor of Māori Studies at Waikato), tikanga iho matua (core tikanga) has "come down from the gods". But do we want (and have we agreed) to be governed by practices that are thought to be of divine origin? Could such practices be challenged? Should laws not be based on the consent of the people who are affected by them?
As noted in another comment above, I would say, Yes, we are governed by Divine Law, in as much as the Monarch in Right of NZ bears the title 'Defender of the [Christian] faith' (Royal Titles Act 1974); and in certain aspects of the Coronation Oath, by which our Monarch was crowned by an Archbishop of the Church of England. Thus, it was not a matter of personal choice at all, nor any democratic choice, but it is bequeathed upon us by the mere fact of our birth as subjects of Her Majesty (heirs and successors..., or predecessor(s), if born before 1953...), and our common heritage as heirs of 'British civilization,' of which the Christian faith is a fundamental of our law and society....? You may wish to say that there are other aspects that form the grounds of our polity, law and cultural inheritance (such as Whig beliefs, liberal beliefs, et c.), however, we surely cannot deny that Christianity is a fundamental part of our common history....and remains so, does it not?
I'm very pleased you're addressing this question, which concerns one of the most significant developments in New Zealand's legal history.