The Current Legal Position 10 In  important  respects  the  Treaty  is  half  in  and  half  out  of  the  legal  system. Whether  it  is  part  of  New  Zealand’s  domestic  law  and  can  be  enforced  in  the courts   depends   upon   whether   it   has   been   incorporated   in   statute.⁴      The constitutionally important judgments in the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in  the  1980s  and  1990s  were  built  on  the  legal foundation that  section 9 of the State-owned enterprises Act 1986 incorporated the Treaty by enacting the words “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” 11 Whether that theory of the matter will remain settled law if the matter is argued in the  new  New  Zealand  Supreme  Court  must  be  open  to  conjecture.    Remember also that the Supreme Court Act 2003, section 13, provides that in granting leave to  appeal  “a  significant  issue  relating  to  the  Treaty  of  Waitangi  is  a  matter  of general or public importance”.  Furthermore, one of the purposes of that Act is “to enable  important  legal  matters,  including  legal  matters  relating  to  the  Treaty  of Waitangi,  to  be  resolved  with  an  understanding  of  New  Zealand  conditions, history and traditions”.   12 More than thirty statutes have been passed by the New Zealand Parliament that incorporate   the   Treaty   in   some   form   or   other,   but   these   do   give   rise   to interpretative difficulties due to the vague and ambiguous meanings of the Treaty provisions  themselves,  even  before  encountering  the  differences  between  the English  and  Maori  versions  of  the  Treaty.  This  problem  has  led  to  calls  for Parliament to be explicit in working out in precise terms how it wants to protect Maori interests in legislative schemes rather than using a general formula similar to section 9.⁵ There are some notable statutes where that was done: the Resource Management Act 1991, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and the Local Government Act 2002.    13 There can be little doubt that the manner in which the Treaty has been handled in legislation  gave  scope  to  New  Zealand  courts  to  interpret  statutes  where  it  had                                                  4    Hoani Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] AC 308. 5    Matthew Palmer “The Treaty of Waitangi in Legislation” [2001] NZLJ 207.