-
@Kirwan This is the crux of the discussion. It's not being twisted. It's the difference between the Maori and English versions. One talks ceding sovereignty. One doesn't. Massive cock-up at the time, but the fact that 150 years passed with almost everyone thinking Maori had surrendered their lands and sovereignty to Queen Victoria doesn't mean that in a less bigoted time we shouldn't at least have a discussion.
Greens, National, Labour, TPM (obviously) are all on board with this. The shit stirrers are not because it's a vote winner.
I've been around long enough to know that generally in NZ the voting public have to be dragged kicking and screaming my the politicians because any change is considered by the majority to be unacceptable. We saw it with all the reforms around gay rights / marriage etc. A decade later it was ll meh.
-
And thats the crux of the issue, there is disagreement about what is meant in the Maori version, it's not as cut and dried as you misrepresent it as. As for the conversation, last week you were even against that.
The fact that you think it's shit stirring/vote grabbing to get some finality to the treaty gravy train speaks volumes.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
Maori had surrendered their lands and
Not their land. Just their sovereignty.
BTW if the English and Māori version gave white men special rights and privileges would you now support it. Because it's in the treaty.
-
@Kirwan the fact that you talk about a treaty gravy train speaks volumes when the sum total spent on Treaty settlements is less than 2.5 Billion.
@Winger There is no version of a Maori treaty that cedes sovereignty. If you don't understand the difference between governance and sovereignty then I despair..
This leaves aside the fact that Pakeha then broke the Treaty time and time again.
-
I’ve been away so long, I’d love some examples?
My feeling - as someone who recently returned - is that the movement to right injustices (land claims etc) has moved far beyond that accepted by the voting public - some Hapu have been claiming veto power / rejecting official officers of the crown.
We cant have that and still have a country where everyone gets a fair go.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Winger There is no version of a Maori treaty that cedes sovereignty. If you don't understand the difference between governance and sovereignty then I despair..
This leaves aside the fact that Pakeha then broke the Treaty time and time again.
Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it true
edit and this is a completely separate issue. That has been / is being addressed. No one ahs an issue with it being addressed either so why bring it up
This leaves aside the fact that Pakeha then broke the Treaty time and time again.THE GENESIS OF THE CO-GOVERNANCE CONCEPT
Over the last 40 years, a combination of the Waitangi Tribunal, the courts, academia, and successive Labour and National governments have progressively changed the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi, based on a flawed interpretation. This includes the misconception that the Treaty created a partnership between the Crown and Māori. The claim to partnership is the argument for the introduction of co-governance arrangements today.
The idea the Treaty of Waitangi created an enduring partnership between Māori and the Crown was first publicly mooted in the 1980’s, more than 150 years after its signing. In the course of explaining a 1987 ruling, the Court of Appeal* referred to the Treaty relationship as “akin to a partnership”, in that each party to the Treaty has a positive duty to act in good faith, fairly, reasonably, and honourably towards the other.
Nowhere did the Court cite any legal authority for what has transpired to be such a revolutionary concept, and which runs counter to several previous cases of high authority.
Although the relationship was likened to the obligation partners in a partnership have to each other, the Court did not say that the Treaty actually created a partnership. As retired District Court Judge and Canterbury University law lecturer Anthony Willy noted a few years ago:
“Māori and the Crown are not partners in any sense of the word. It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into partnership with any of its subjects.”
Notwithstanding this impossibility, the idea the Treaty created an enduring partnership was quickly picked up by the Waitangi Tribunal and by the 1987 Iwi Leaders’ Forum. From that time the Tribunal and this powerful interest group have achieved enormous success in claiming “partnership” as the justification for constitutional change and ownership rights.- The 1987 State-owned Enterprises case between the Māori Council and the Attorney General.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan the fact that you talk about a treaty gravy train speaks volumes when the sum total spent on Treaty settlements is less than 2.5 Billion.
@Winger There is no version of a Maori treaty that cedes sovereignty. If you don't understand the difference between governance and sovereignty then I despair..
This leaves aside the fact that Pakeha then broke the Treaty time and time again.
Do you really think the gravy train just includes settlements? Look at some of the salaries of these grifters.
Also, the treaty can’t be separated by language, it’s a bilingual treaty. So you can’t just point at one and ignore the other.
Putting that to one side, ACT is trying to define the treaty principles introduced by Labour in clear and unambiguous language. This is important as they are referenced 57 times in different legislation and nobody can agree on what they mean.
This will also put to bed the power creep from activists misusing the Waitangi Tribunal to change how we are governed.
-
You guys do realise that Maori didn't just start complaining about the treaty in the last few years right? That that's total bullshit?
The complaints started basically from day 1 when it was clear it wasn't being honoured - e.g. a letter to Queen Victoria in 1856 - there is re-writing of history going on, but it's not what you think it is. -
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Winger There is no version of a Maori treaty that cedes sovereignty. If you don't understand the difference between governance and sovereignty then I despair..
Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it true
It being true makes it true. Unless you're talking about the version that conspiracy theorists' trot out every so often - that nobody ever fucken signed.
But of course you will be. -
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Winger There is no version of a Maori treaty that cedes sovereignty. If you don't understand the difference between governance and sovereignty then I despair..
Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it true
It being true makes it true. Unless you're talking about the version that conspiracy theorists' trot out every so often - that nobody ever fucken signed.
But of course you will be.So what is the ultimate goal here?
"Honour the Treaty"?
What Treaty? What version? What meaning?
What is the ultimate shape of the "partnership"? What are the rights and responsibilities we all share? Who are the Parties to the Treaty?
The above written by someone whose knowledge is limited to the headlines.
Almost as if we should have a conversation about it all...
-
@booboo said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@Winger There is no version of a Maori treaty that cedes sovereignty. If you don't understand the difference between governance and sovereignty then I despair..
Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it true
It being true makes it true. Unless you're talking about the version that conspiracy theorists' trot out every so often - that nobody ever fucken signed.
But of course you will be.So what is the ultimate goal here?
"Honour the Treaty"?
What Treaty? What version? What meaning?
What is the ultimate shape of the "partnership"? What are the rights and responsibilities we all share? Who are the Parties to the Treaty?
The above written by someone whose knowledge is limited to the headlines.
Almost as if we should have a conversation about it all...
There's one treaty, in two languages, with different meanings. It's hardly realistic to expect Maori to be fine with an English version which they never agreed to. I think it's a reasonable position to think that it kinda has to be the Maori version we use, as the country was Maori-owned at that point in time - and also by the way as per the UN position on the matter (which a National govt signed us up to).
So then it becomes a choice between saying 'tough luck, not honouring that' or attempting to honour it. At least that is an honest discourse. I don't mind someone saying 'nah look that just can't work today, we need to scrap that and have a different agreement'. What irks me is the lies people tell (including to themselves) to avoid facts they would find uncomfortable if they had to believe them.
As for having a conversation about it - there have been plenty, that's how the principles came about. What ACT want to do is revisit it all, divide people, and get some votes - and they're succeeding, because it's easy to present as a reasonable position if you lie about/confuse the origins and ignore the detail. Scare-mongering works, as per quite a number of posts on this thread: ''our own apartheid''. What has the Maori health authority actually done to harm anyone? What has been the negative impact of a decade of co-governance on the Waikato and Whanganui rivers? It's just ridiculous talking about gravy trains (as per Dogmeat), and extrapolating as if the world is going to end if Maori get a bit more agency to deal with the problems they face in health etc - problems the crown has consistently failed them on. You wanna see a gravy train, check out our local councils - the very people ACT want to devolve responsibility to.
It's also - in terms of basic moral behaviour - pretty stink signing a treaty as a small minority, not honouring your part of it, then having a referendum to change what it means after you've got a majority. Pretty scummy behaviour really. -
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
has to be the Maori version we use
Why?
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
honouring
What shape does "Honouring the Treaty " take?
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
What has the Maori health authority actually done to harm anyone?
Has it helped anyone?
Has it diverted funds from other people in need?
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
I don't mind someone saying
Having a conversation. Pleased you're on board.
Also, where has it been suggested that anyone wants to change the Treaty?
-
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
You guys do realise that Maori didn't just start complaining about the treaty in the last few years right? That that's total bullshit?
The complaints started basically from day 1 when it was clear it wasn't being honoured - e.g. a letter to Queen Victoria in 1856 - there is re-writing of history going on, but it's not what you think it is.Complaining about the treaty. Or the treaty not being complied with or ignored. There is a (big) difference.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/object/26662/tawhiaos-1884-petition-to-the-queen
The rewriting of history relates to this partnership rubbish. It will do a lot to undermine NZ as a country. With only a small number of chosen people on the gravy train. The rest will be pissed off.
-
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
It's also - in terms of basic moral behaviour - pretty stink signing a treaty as a small minority, not honouring your part of it, then having a referendum to change what it means after you've got a majority. Pretty scummy behaviour really.
This partnership push is a disgrace. It's shameful that NZ is going down this path. And concerning that the majority of NZ'ers have basically stood back and let it happen.
But now is the time to make a firm stand. To let our (incompetent / corrupt or whatever) leaders know that discrimination in this way is unacceptable. Regardless of who benefits from it (and I would feel the same way if white males were the beneficiaries).
We must however settle genuine grievances. Fairly. And I believe help those in need regardless of color, sex or ancestry etc.
Regarding this partnership push. The supporters of this destructive push make claims and seem to rarely provide much to back it up. Like a link
Like this
The idea the Treaty of Waitangi created an enduring partnership between Māori and the Crown was first publicly mooted in the 1980’s, more than 150 years after its signing. In the course of explaining a 1987 ruling, the Court of Appeal* referred to the Treaty relationship as “akin to a partnership”, in that each party to the Treaty has a positive duty to act in good faith, fairly, reasonably, and honourably towards the other.
Nowhere did the Court cite any legal authority for what has transpired to be such a revolutionary concept, and which runs counter to several previous cases of high authority.
Although the relationship was likened to the obligation partners in a partnership have to each other, the Court did not say that the Treaty actually created a partnership. As retired District Court Judge and Canterbury University law lecturer Anthony Willy noted a few years ago:
“Māori and the Crown are not partners in any sense of the word. It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into partnership with any of its subjects.”
Notwithstanding this impossibility, the idea the Treaty created an enduring partnership was quickly picked up by the Waitangi Tribunal and by the 1987 Iwi Leaders’ Forum. From that time the Tribunal and this powerful interest group have achieved enormous success in claiming “partnership” as the justification for constitutional change and ownership rights. -
@Winger Your blog links are a bit boring mate. Any of us could quite easily publish our ramblings on a website and it wouldn't give them any more validity than what they have now.
What is it about the word partnership that scares you so much? To the best of my knowledge the only specific legal use of that term is in small business, which clearly isn't applicable here. It's just a word saying sorting shit out together - and when you look at the poor outcomes for Maori in areas like health, and the fact that it's not unreasonable to say the Crown has played a role in those poor outcomes, then why is it such a catastrophically bad thing to get some Maori input? There is no government that is going to be elected in NZ who is going to implement some sort of apartheid system - that's just a weird fantasy. -
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
You guys do realise that Maori didn't just start complaining about the treaty in the last few years right? That that's total bullshit?
The complaints started basically from day 1 when it was clear it wasn't being honoured - e.g. a letter to Queen Victoria in 1856 - there is re-writing of history going on, but it's not what you think it is.Complaining about the treaty. Or the treaty not being complied with or ignored. There is a (big) difference.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/object/26662/tawhiaos-1884-petition-to-the-queen
The rewriting of history relates to this partnership rubbish. It will do a lot to undermine NZ as a country. With only a small number of chosen people on the gravy train. The rest will be pissed off.
The latter. The re-writing of history is on the side who are trying to say the Maori version is confusing / there isn't agreement on what it says etc. Stop pretending, just grow some stones and say you don't want to follow the treaty.
NZ Politics