At first glance, the recent Act New Zealand policy release, would appear innocuous: ‘‘One law for all with one future together’’.

There is, in fact, one law for all at present and one can hardly question the aspiration of one future together.

It is the later that is problematic as the path prescribed in this policy statement can only exacerbate the difference and inequalities that persist.

By focusing on the elevation of property rights, hampering the scope of judicial interpretation of legislation and minimising the status of Te Tiriti, this policy statement presents as the Treaty Principals Bill resurrected.

Notwithstanding this bill not being supported by Act’s coalition partners, nor by Crown advisors, the Bill proceeded to select committee and produced the largest public display of opposition in our history, before being voted down.

A review of this government’s legislation programme discloses multiple instances of legislative change that directly impacts negatively on Māori, particularly in the fields of health, education and welfare and Māori rights.

The structures and institutions of this country are race based, introduced by a colonising people and designed for the benefit of the coloniser. It is well recognised that settler colonisation is not an event to be confined to history, but a structure, a persistent framework that informs present day policies and realities.

The success of Act’s policies would require assimilation of Māori, once the aspiration of the early colonial project.

Te Tiriti allows no room for this, hence its being cast into oblivion until the late 20th century.

That the structures and institutions of this country, recognised and accepted by a white majority as being normal and appropriate, do not serve the indigenous Māori well, is seen in inequality of Māori experienced in every measure of well-being.

As Dr. Carwyn Jones has pointed out, much of what Act says it wants to restore, already exists and the judicial approach in the common law, which includes Tikanga Māori, is very conservative.

The thrust of this policy would change the legal framework around obligations under Te Tiriti.

Undoubtedly, this policy is aimed at its base, but what is of concern, is the self-admitted ‘‘disproportionate influence’’ of Act in the present coalition.

This gives rise to questions as to the lengths a major party will go to secure a coalition government.

Allowing a Bill to proceed to select committee, as a government Bill, without the support of the principal coalition partner, as was the case with the Treaty Principals Bill is questionable to say the least.

In the run up to this year’s election, all of the prospective coalition partners of Act should be required to unequivocably state a position on this policy.

  • Noel O’Malley is a retired lawyer and past president of the Otago District Law Society.