If you have a contract between two.parties and one party decides to unilaterally change it then it's essentially broken
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
Chris Martin (Coldplay), Jason Momoa (Dothraki), Octavia Spencer (no idea), Lorde (Royals but a horrible dancer) and TJ Perenara (wrong code) are all against the Treaty bill
Take that, Seymour
Take that, Seymour
What does Ed Sheeran say about it
NZWarriors.com
He’d just smile at it, with his big round face and eyes not quite staring straight ahead
- Thread starter
- #12,846
Yea but it’s not Seymour deciding anything.
He’s proposed a bill. It goes to a select committee where the public and māori get a say. The coalition partners would have to agree to it (which they don’t) and then it goes to a referendum where the public has the final say.
And even then Labour and the māori party could get in and redefine them.
Pretty thorough process and not just Seymour changing the treaty.
I personally think this is something that was never going to come in but is a shot ‘across the bow’ after co-governance got pushed onto us without anyone having a say.
Last edited:
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #12,847
For conversations sake, if I’m not māori and not English, the treaty doesn’t apply to me, if it’s exclusively between the two parties?
Why should māori be unequal to me in regards to how my tax payer dollars are spent (health, education, medicines), if I wasn’t part of the treaty with māori? Without being represented in the treaty māori are my equal
Woke that out for me
Because all nz citizens are legally obligated to honour the treaty, Indian, Chinese or Irish. Seymour's principles are pretty vague, courts have argued for decades on an English definition of what tino rangatiratanga meant to the māori chiefs, I can't see this bill making it any clearer.For conversations sake, if I’m not māori and not English, the treaty doesn’t apply to me, if it’s exclusively between the two parties?
Why should māori be unequal to me in regards to how my tax payer dollars are spent (health, education, medicines), if I wasn’t part of the treaty with māori? Without being represented in the treaty māori are my equal
Woke that out for me
- Thread starter
- #12,849
NZWarriors.com
It's literally the treaty, we're all citizens together and all equal under the crown law, except for the ones who are more equal than others. (the pakeha added the last bit to their one).Is that in the treaty?
Ir is that another undefined principle
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #12,851
The English or māori version? I thought the treaty made us all British subjects?
Why can’t I go to England as a subject? Who broke that treaty condition???
And if the treaty made us British subjects, how did we become kiwis? Weren’t we even set up as Aussies at one stage (part of NSW?).
māori, British, Aussie, Kiwi? All so confusing.
Last edited:
They lost their empire, the Governor General is the only one carrying on that farce.
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #12,853
So the treaty’s null and void? We’re not British citizens anymore?
We became a hybrid master race within very few generations. Anyone's welcome to join the genepool, we need all we can get.
Last edited:
The pinnacle of the hybrid master race
NZWarriors.com
One year of the coalition Government: The highs, lows and long road ahead - The Front Page
By Chelsea DanielsThe Front Page podcast host·NZ Herald·
27 Nov, 2024 05:00 AM3 mins to read
The coalition Government spearheaded by NZ First leader Winston Peters (left), National leader Christopher Luxon and Act leader David Seymour has been in power for a year. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Today marks a year since the coalition Government of National, Act and New Zealand First took office.
The coalition hit the ground running by reversing the previous Labour Government’s agenda in a “policy bonfire”, slimming down the public service, and reverting many Crown organisations to their English names.
This, and the scrapping of the Māori Health Authority, kicked off tensions between this Government and Māoridom – with backlash on the Treaty Principles Bill only adding fuel to the flames earlier this month.
But with wins around tax cuts, family benefits, more regional investment, and new laws to tackle crime, there’s plenty for the Government to celebrate.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said this week he is “aspirational” for New Zealanders’ and “energised” for the next two years.
Victoria University politics lecturer Bryce Edwards told The Front Page this government lacks a bold or strong vision for where it’s going.
“This government still hasn’t really stamped its mark to say what they’re about. We still don’t really have any great kind of ideological underpinnings, branding or vision of what this government’s going to achieve.
“We hear Nicola Willis in the next budget is going to deal with economic growth, they’re going to bring in a lot more social investment. It’s yet to be seen whether that’s going to resonate with people,” he said.
On the coalition’s collaboration, Edwards said there hasn’t been any sign of any kind of meltdown that its opponents and critics were forecasting.
“I’m not so surprised about that because I always thought that a lot of the beef and arguments between the likes of Winston Peters and David Seymour were more about politicking.”
Edwards thinks Casey Costello’s handling of tobacco reforms has hurt the Government the most.
The repeal of Labour’s “smokefree generation” legislation as well as NZ First’s links to members within the tobacco industry had led to Costello copping criticism from public health officials and Opposition politicians, who alleged she was working on behalf of tobacco companies.
“It brings up this idea of the Government perhaps being in the pocket of the tobacco industry, lobbyists of vested interests.
“I think people have been quite surprised to see the Government rolling back reforms on smoking and vaping... I think there’s a public feeling that Casey Costello certainly isn’t one of the strongest Cabinet performers and she’s been lucky to survive, largely because she’s not a National Party minister and so Luxon hasn’t had the ability to demote her,” he said.
No evidence of formal links between Costello and members of the tobacco industry had emerged. Costello had repeatedly denied any contact with industry players.
Edwards said the coalition Government faces a number of challenges in the next couple of years – including adversaries in the public services and academia.
“But, they don’t really seem to be leading the resistance. In the end, it turned out to be iwi and te ao Māori in general [who are] the main focus for challenging the Government.”
Listen to the full episode to hear more about the political year that was.
One year of the coalition: The highs, lows and long road ahead
Today marks the anniversary of the current Government taking office.
Missed opportunities of the hīkoi, and the missing PM
Sir Ian TaylorNovember 27, 2024 •05:00am
Sir Ian Taylor is the founder and managing director of Animation Research.
OPINION: Talanoa is a cornerstone of Pasifika communication — a way to maintain respectful relationships through open, honest dialogue. It enables people to share opposing views without the pressure of predetermined agreement. At its heart lies what I believe to be the purest form of conversation: talking and listening with respect.
It is in that spirit that I reflect on a remarkable day in Aotearoa New Zealand’s history: the culmination of the hīkoi opposing David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.
My day began with a 6.25am flight from Ōtepoti, Dunedin, to Wellington, Te Whanganui-a-Tara, where I joined a hīkoi that had started in Te Tai Tokerau, Northland. This journey, connecting the far ends of the motu, reminded me of my own whakapapa and my connection to the whenua. I was born in Kaeo, Northland, to a Pākehā father and Māori mother, raised in the small village of Raupunga in Hawke’s Bay, went to school in Masterton, joined a band in Wellington in the late 60s and now live in Dunedin.
Before joining the hīkoi, I was interviewed by Sean Plunket on The Platform where he asked a question which caught me completely off guard. “So how much Māori are you? Aren’t you a Kiwi first?” This question goes to the heart of Seymour’s argument and I didn’t have a ready answer at the time because it’s a question I hadn’t been asked since the 1960s. But as I walked with thousands of others to Parliament, the answer became clear.
My father’s whakapapa traces back to Scotland, another proud indigenous culture, while my mother’s lineage traces back to the waka Takitimu, which landed here in the 13th century. That was the century that Genghis Khan was building the largest empire in the history of the world. That was the century that the last of the crusades were being fought. And, in the context of Tē Tiriti, that was the century the Magna Carta was signed.
It’s not an insignificant time line for a whakapapa when I am asked the question - who are you? It’s also a time line I think all Kiwis should be proud of, not just Māori.
But, if I have to make a choice, as Sean seemed to expect, I would look to the words of Sir Apirana Ngata who, in 1949, gave this advice to his 9-year-old niece: “Grow up young child and throughout your life use the tools that Pākehā have to offer as the lodestone to your creative inspiration... but always remain grounded in your own identity, values, and traditions.”
So, if I must choose between being Māori or Kiwi, I would choose Māori because, of the two, it is the one I believe best recognises in me the power of both our cultures working together.
But, with the utmost respect to the hīkoi organisers, this was a kaupapa, a lesson I felt was missing as thousands of us gathered on Parliament grounds at the conclusion of the hīkoi. A hīkoi that, in every other way, was one of the most powerful examples of the kaupapa of peace, unity and partnership that was set by the legacy of Dame Whina-Cooper’s historic march over 40 years ago.
As I listened to the opening mihi whakatau, delivered in Te Reo, I was reminded of the biblical story of the Tower of Babel. If you want to divide a people and bring down the Tower, you make sure they don’t speak the same language.
You divide them by ensuring there is no place for meaningful dialogue. You simply cannot listen with respect to a language you cannot understand. Nor can you listen with respect if you refuse to listen to those with opposing views. Intended or not, that was the kaupapa unfolding before me.
The night before I boarded my flight from Otepoti to Wellington, I took part in a public meeting at the Dunedin Hospital where kaumatua Edward Ellison began with a karakia and welcome which he delivered beautifully in both Māori and English. Two things always happen when someone takes that approach.
The first is that everyone feels included. The second is that, as you listen to the combination of the two languages, those of us who don’t have te reo, see the beauty and power it has when delivered in a language we do understand.
I’ve been told the early speeches were in Te Reo so as to speak directly to “our people.” But where does that place someone like me. A Māori who does not have Te Reo, who joined the hīkoi to hear the reasoned and powerful arguments which must be shared to counter the challenge that Seymour has placed in front of the country, clearly and succinctly, in English.
Where did that place the significant percentage of those 30-50,000 marchers (we are now even arguing about the size of crowds!) on the hīkoi who don’t have Te Reo either?
Marchers like the pākehā chief legal adviser for one of the country's major banks joined us, with members of his staff, and pointed out the irony that one of the buildings we passed on our way to Parliament was the Supreme Court. The top court in the land that represents the myriad of considered legal opinions that have been built up over many years around Tē Tiriti.
These legal opinions are what Seymour wants to change with a referendum of “the common people”.
A simplistic view, supported by his translation of a legal document, written in Te Reo. A questionable exercise for someone without Te Reo. One that was repeated by ex ACT MP, and lawyer, Stephen Franks who, on The Panel on RNZ, also positioned himself as an expert in Te Reo by claiming that Article Two of the Māori version of the Treaty was unambiguous, and the term “rangatiratanga” was simply a metaphor for property ownership.
A metaphor that, as history shows us, was used very much to the advantage of those early European signatories to the Treaty. A metaphor that clearly sits at the core of this debate but, there it was, delivered by a pākehā lawyer as a fact.
Back at Parliament grounds, when we did get a view delivered to us in English, it came from another minority party leader who seemed to take pride in announcing that ‘we’ didn’t want to hear from Seymour. Seymour probably couldn’t believe his good fortune as he stood above the crowd pitching his views on social media to all and sundry that, here he was, the victim.
Willing to share his views but blocked by people refusing to listen.
I would love to have heard him speak, and then watch his response when met with complete silence. You have spoken, thank you - we are moving on. That would have provided more stunning imagery for the world media, who have rightfully put this hīkoi on the world stage.
The aunties in the hīkoi who told the rabble rouser who fired off a flare “if you do that again we will come over and give you a good hiding,” could easily have ensured that Seymour’s address was met with dignified silence. It’s a lesson we have all learnt growing up. You don’t mess with your aunties.
And then there was the missing Prime Minister. While the hīkoi leadership excluded me as part of “our people,” the Prime Minister dismissed me entirely as a Te Pāti Māori supporter.
For the record Prime Minister, I voted National in the last election. I haven’t voted for Te Pāti Māori since the days of Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples, leaders who understood the importance of being at the table for meaningful dialogue rather than shouting from the sidelines.
The Prime Minister’s argument that there is ample time to ask questions in the House ignores the reality that those of us outside Parliament see on a daily basis. This so-called debating chamber appears to be little more than a child’s playpen where point scoring and throwing toys around is the norm. This was the PM’s opportunity to speak outside the playpen to people like me who are looking for leadership on this debate. A debate that has only arisen because of the coalition agreement he agreed to.
This was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to lead, to address crucial questions like: which of the two versions of the Treaty did he believe should hold precedence — the Māori version, signed by 500 rangatira, or the English version, signed by just 39? Did he believe in the legal precedent; the Doctrine of Original Intent where courts seek to interpret agreements based on the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was signed. A precedent that includes examining the language used, the surrounding circumstances, and any relevant context?
This hīkoi, remarkable for its scale, discipline, and peacefulness, also deserved acknowledgement as an extraordinary effort by the organisers rather than being dismissed as a political stunt by Te Pāti Māori.
By not taking that opportunity the PM showed a disregard for all of those who joined the hīkoi, either in person or in spirit, regardless of who we voted for.
The irony of ironies is the fact often alluded to by kaumatua Tā Tipene O’Regan that, in the beginning, it was National party leaders like Doug Kidd, Sir Douglas Graham and Jim Bolger who were so instrumental in advancing Treaty settlements and emphasising the importance of the Treaty in our national identity.
A kaupapa built on by politicians like Jenny Shipley, Chris Finlayson and, from Labour, Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Tā Tipine has a saying that has always resonated with me, ‘we should always remember to remember’.
This is an important debate that needs to be had, and Māori leaders should step up to a kaupapa that embraces the idea that it is important to all of us.
Pākehā, Māori and all other cultures that have arrived on our shores since the signing of Tē Tiriti. We need that debate to be fully informed and we cannot leave it to politicians to take control of it, as they did so predictably, and petulantly, the following day in the House.
One of the outcomes of a discussion that is meant to be held in the spirit of talanoa, is that it very quickly becomes obvious who is simply not prepared to listen.
While many have bathed in the apparent success of the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti, I am left with the question; on the day after the hīkoi, how many of us felt better informed on the key issues that lie at the heart of this debate?
More importantly, what are we, the people who put politicians in parliament to represent us, going to do about it?
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
The next step in Labour's tax reforms will happen this weekend when the Labour conference vote on whether to formally proceed with continuing work on either a wealth tax or CGT will proceed through to the 2025 Conference. Delegates have been very closed as to what the wording for the proposal is. Which this space with interest!!!!
NZWarriors.com
Non deductible interest?
I was talking to another designer the other day who is also a landlord. Earlier this year, the previous tenants left and most of the wallpaper in the unit he owns was pealing off so he got a contractor in to remove the wallpaper, re-stop the walls where required and paint the walls. Because of the age of the house, it had nails holding up the ceiling instead of screws and a number of them had "popped" so he got the ceilings done at the same time. Total cost was over $9,000. His accountant considered this a capital expense instead of a revenue expense.
Because he brought the rental using equity in his family home as the deposit, he borrowed 100% of the purchase price from the bank. This meant the rent didn't cover the mortgage and other expenses so he's paying around $12,000 PA to cover the difference.
With only being able to claim half of the interest, his investment property was cost him over $17,000 last year but because of the decorating and interest deductibility, his tax on the "rental income" was over $5,000. This meant his "investment" cost him over $22,000.
Yet, if he lied and said the previous tenant had instead caused the damage to the walls and he had been able to claim back all the interest, instead his tax bill would have been just over $1,200.
And, because he hasn't owned the property long enough, if he instead decided to sell it, he'd have to pay capital gains because of the Brightline test.
He said he doesn't have a problem paying tax on actual income but not when he's out of pocket by over $17,000. I wonder what other "business" in NZ is affected like this paying for tax on a loss causing investment?
