-
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.
-
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@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.
Or grow some stones and lay out what you think go-governance looks like. I have heard activitist ask for a seperate justice and health system. Huge waste of resources and only helps a tiny proportion of NZ. Is that good for the future of NZ?
Alos, focusing on the Maori version only is ignoring that it's a bilungual document and the english text cannot be discarded. Also, ACTs whole thing is this is not ignoring or rewriting the treaty, but clarifying the principles introduced in the 1970s.
So you are arguing about something that's not even happening.
-
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
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?
Are there no Māori public servants, public health officials, doctors etc. that can have input into programs? Why would you need to permanently set up twice the bureaucracy?
-
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
There is no government that is going to be elected in NZ who is going to implement some sort of apartheid system
Maybe try opening your eyes
And I guess you would find links that demolish the partnership treaty claim boring. Or another derogatory term
-
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
@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.
OK. Then please supply one link to back up this claim
I've provided one that has said the partnership is a recent development. And the partnership claim is garbage
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
Or grow some stones and lay out what you think go-governance looks like
Going down this route is very risky. The question that should eb discussed first is
- Is it really in the Maori version? This doesn't seem to be as clear cut as some claim
- Even of it is should go down this route. Like if the Māori version gave white males special right and privileges. My view today would be to ignore it. As it's not in the country's best interests. But if someone (or a group or an enemy country) wanted to destroy NZ, then do it. Put people into groups and build up resentment between the groups.
-
I have heard activitist ask for a seperate justice and health system. Huge waste of resources and only helps a tiny proportion of NZ. Is that good for the future of NZ?
So you are arguing about something that's not even happening.
...?
-
@antipodean said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
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?
Are there no Māori public servants, public health officials, doctors etc. that can have input into programs? Why would you need to permanently set up twice the bureaucracy?
In my experience, bureaucracy are perfectly capable of ignoring the advice of people at the coal face already, whoever they may be. Just a giant waste of time and resources.
So how about we get the bureaucracy we've got actually getting informed by people and groups on the ground, instead of arbitrarily deciding what people need and more often than not getting it wrong?
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
Wife write a cracker of an email, but we didn’t send it. Discussed with the kids and there a big concern that there would repercussions.
Interesting thing happen in education, I remember years ago my son asking me not to pay supposedly vountary school fees because the principal said that anyone who hadn't paid them would be read out in assembly. He said stuff em, if they going to try and make some kids look bad, I will join them, and f*** the backlash. That's back about 35 years or so. I would say I was quietly proud of him and with all due respect, if you do nothing in case of backlash, I would suggest you risk bringing up young adults who will maybe not stand up to wrongdoing?
But also I went to school in the 60s and our education was all very much opposite to what you are saying too. We were taught the old english way, and were left in no doubt how grateful the Maori almost should of been that we came and colonised them, and England's history was more important than ours. Anything we had that was modern etc was because of colonisation. It was when to be considered very bright you needed to say yes sir/miss etc, and were never to have an opinion of your own. I don't recall teachers ever asking students what do you think?
It's unfortunate but education is like most things and goes with what is trendy at time. And back then what a teacher said or did was considered right and never did we do anything. There was some real shit happened in the name of education I think now looking back. And he I an far far from being a left wing or anything. -
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@reprobate said in NZ Politics:
There is no government that is going to be elected in NZ who is going to implement some sort of apartheid system
Maybe try opening your eyes
Open my eyes to what? We've just had the major left wing party governing alone after a landslide election victory, and there is no apartheid.
Now we have the major right wing party governing, and they are saying 'no' to ACT's bill, they signed us up to the UN indigenous rights declaration. There's not going to be any apartheid with them either.
Winston wants to pull out of that UN declaration, Seymour is being a jerk, the Greens are batshit, TPM are understandably on the far edge. So, like I said, there is no apartheid coming, as there is broad agreement between our only two major parties, and it is only the little ones who never get to actually govern who play these extreme polarising, scaremongering lines - and you guys are just sucking it all up. -
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
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.”
I wonder how Anthony Willy explains the origin of the Magna Carta.
-
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
Or grow some stones and lay out what you think go-governance looks like
Going down this route is very risky. The question that should eb discussed first is
- Is it really in the Maori version? This doesn't seem to be as clear cut as some claim
- Even of it is should go down this route. Like if the Māori version gave white males special right and privileges. My view today would be to ignore it. As it's not in the country's best interests. But if someone (or a group or an enemy country) wanted to destroy NZ, then do it. Put people into groups and build up resentment between the groups.
Yes, it really is. If you were actually interested in finding out about it rather than looking at echo chamber blog posts there are a few books you can read. John Bluck for example gives a reasonable explanation of the key Maori terms, and some solid reasoning for the way they would have been understood by Maori at the time - based on the words chosen in the English-Maori translation and the fact that language learning was conducted by missionaries, who used these terms at the time to describe relationships in the bible.
Co-governance is a vague term - like partnership - which you seem to find equally scary.
Governance in a business sense is (business.govt.nz) ''Governance is about the checks and balances and expert advice that keep your business on track. It includes all the practices, processes and policies that help you guide your business in the right direction.''
Now take the health example. The health system has failed Maori. Shit outcomes. What is the big deal about getting some Maori input on how to improve the practices, processes and policies to improve the outcomes for Maori? That could easily be described as co-governance, and frankly it's just a good idea. But if you listen to the extremists, it means the sky is falling, and everyone non-Maori is going to be a 2nd class citizen.
NZ Politics