Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[miket12]

Genuine question, do you understand the issues of "sovereignty" and what the means in real terms?

And do you understand that not once have I said anything against sovereignty and that I want a discussion about how to strengthen the Treaty”s place so to preserve sovereignty. Unfortunately, there are people in NZ who would rather undermine and not strengthen it. Left to their own devices, and through a referendum, they will try to.

I’d rather we have a discussion and education on moving forward together.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

And do you understand that not once have I said anything against sovereignty and that I want a discussion about how to strengthen the Treaty”s place so to preserve sovereignty. Unfortunately, there are people in NZ who would rather undermine and not strengthen it. Left to their own devices, and through a referendum, they will try to.

I’d rather we have a discussion and education on moving forward together.

How do you “move forward” under govt authority without ceding sovereignty?

Again I genuinely don’t know… Sounds like a legal minefield

 

[miket12]

How do you “move forward” under govt authority without ceding sovereignty?

Again I genuinely don’t know… Sounds like a legal minefield

I wouldn’t think it would be ceding sovereignty as much as expanding on it. Not taking away what advancements have been made but establishing a pathway forward and enshrining definitions that politicians just can’t change at their whim.

 

[MaybeTop8]

As someone who is pro Maori but believe changes have been forced through to fast, I’m drawn to putting the brakes on and moving slower. But I don’t think a National debate is the way forward. We’re not mature enough as a nation.

But I’m after your view in the future - how does NZ look after say 50 years in regards to the treaty and race relations?

Do we want to move towards more separation as NZers (Maori are a seperate race/ culture and treated differently within NZ) with different outcomes and expectations; or do we want to all be kiwis with a strong culture sitting within the country with the same outcomes and expectations?

I believe Maori want to be treated seperate but also the same outcomes. I don’t know that you can have both.

Honestly I somewhat shamefully lack education in this area. As such I'm unqualified to offer any kind of opinion until I've been able to view objective perspectives from both sides, as well as view the original treaty text, and then understand what co governance actually is, not what the right TELL us it is.

For example, the idea of guardianship, not exploitation. Community resource rather than wealth extraction.

There's also an entire context in which the treaty was constructed as an article of good faith

Here's someone who I respect and speaks from a position of research - Dame Anne Salmond:

Anne Salmond on the Treaty debate: Māori and Pākehā think differently

New Prime Minister Christopher Luxon needs to step in, stop the minor parties' anti-democratic posturing and weave the people back together, writes Dame Anne Salmond

newsroom.co.nz

https://natlib.govt.nz/he-tohu/korero/interview-with-dame-anne-salmond

Why Act’s Treaty referendum is disrespectful and arrogant

Dame Anne Salmond sets the record straight about the Act leader and his proposed Tiriti referendum

newsroom.co.nz

I have to be honest, I have a lot to do this weekend and the next couple of weeks Wiz, but I can only offer you this as well:

Australia have recently had the Indigenous rights vote, which saw agitation from the Atlas Network in attempts to discredit the movement

A Secretive Network Is Fighting Indigenous Rights in Australia and Canada, Expert Says

It’s all part of a global playbook from the U.S.-based Atlas Network to protect the profits of fossil fuel and mining companies, argues a Sydney researcher.

www.desmog.com

Atlas Network's fossil-fuelled campaign against the Voice

The campaign against the Voice to Parliament has ties with companies that have long been misinforming the public about the climate crisis.

independentaustralia.net

and in Canada - https://www.theguardian.com/environ...undermined-indigenous-energy-rights-in-canada


Given this referendum is coming from the right and the far right it's my opinion that same playbook is in action here. It's disgusting. Based on that alone I would reject Act's premise.

A Simple Nullity

How lobbyist and influence groups are preparing for an all-out assault on Te Tiriti o Waitangi

badnewsletter.substack.com

 

[MaybeTop8]

Seymour's definition of freedom by his own words is pretty much neoliberalism - https://www.act.org.nz/speech_the_emergencies_labour_should_have_declared

 

[defensivebomb]

I will just add that a constitution is not a treaty and te tiriti can't just be 'assimilated' - its a founding document unto itself.
That is, its original form is not lost or changed (as how it has been & Seymour and others are trying to do) and from there a constitution is drawn up to address the rights of all people/ New Zealand.
Much of what you said has been happening already (except the constitution part) with local authorities across the country working to initiate co-governance contracts with Maori and communities, land ownership issues through the Waitangi Tribunal, Maori Land Court, through council consent processes (where they're not snuck through unnotified) especially for water issues and waahi tapu through Hertitage NZ and Archaeological expertise, and more besides. Its been a slow arduous process but gains have been made where all sides have reached consensus. And those gains are a large part of what will be affected through the 100day action list & the oiling of the squeaky wheels of those that have monetary/ pecuniary interest in seeing repeal of environmental, health & wellbeing, and Maori self-determination reforms, or just plain bias.
A constitution drafted outside of politics would go a long way to bringing everyone onto the same page but it cannot relegate the original treaty to a clause somewhere just because Maori are 'outnumbered' today.

Just a point of clarity - NZ has a constitution already, which includes the treaty. It isn’t a single separate “constitution” document, as in say the US. Our constitution is the total sum of our treaty, our laws and case law.

The treaty itself is a fairly concise document. Normally contractual law is somewhat straightforward to apply in disputes. The debatable part of the treaty, subject to considerable contention, is that despite the "form" of the treaty, Maori have argued their ancestors “believed” the substance of the treaty was that they could enjoy continued self governance. Recent court decisions and tribunal arguments been sympathetic to this argument, and we see a partial acknowledgement in the existence of Maori electorates.

Even if this argument is true, then how fair to both sides is it to address this? If my ancestors signed an agreement in 1840, can I then argue generations later that they didn’t mean to, and they thought it meant something else?

The recent political climate has been any pro-Crown debate around this point is racist, and we all heard from the Greens, TPM and Labour during the debates that to raise these concerns you'll be called a racist.

Independent judiciary is one of the hallmarks of democracy Wiz.

That's true, but how independent is the judiciary currently?

One of the challenges here is the role of the Attorney General, who appoints judges and is supposed to be apolitical. David Parker was anything but apolitical, and you can quite easily see that in the judges he appointed, and the guidance he gave to the courts around discounting sentences and being cognizant of the Maori element of sentencing.

One judge (whose family I know) is fractionally Maori. She was appointed recently and all the hoopla at her swearing in was hailing her Maori heritage. She was welcomed into the court by Maori (as in, "we welcome you to our court"), Waiatas, tracing her whakapapa etc. No acknowledgement or praise of the 88% of the rest of her blood.

So we have had an AG appointing a judiciary that is Maori, and pro-Maori. An “independent” judiciary, that makes court decisions and sets precedent for tribunal decisions and Maori co governance aspects.

So here we are now where a good portion of NZ is saying, hang on, let's discuss this and agree a way forward.

If we leave it to continue, we are kicking a festering mess down the road whereby you are either born into a separate set of laws and rights

 

[MaybeTop8]

Ummm… he wants a referendum… like the ultimate democracy.

Who should decide these things? Definitely not unelected officials as it is now.

Personally don’t think the whole thing will get anywhere. Not even to the referendum.

What problem is he trying to fix by the way? What's his motivation?

 

[MaybeTop8]

Just a point of clarity - NZ has a constitution already, which includes the treaty. It isn’t a single separate “constitution” document, as in say the US. Our constitution is the total sum of our treaty, our laws and case law.

The treaty itself is a fairly concise document. Normally contractual law is somewhat straightforward to apply in disputes. The debatable part of the treaty, subject to considerable contention, is that despite the "form" of the treaty, Maori have argued their ancestors “believed” the substance of the treaty was that they could enjoy continued self governance. Recent court decisions and tribunal arguments been sympathetic to this argument, and we see a partial acknowledgement in the existence of Maori electorates.

Even if this argument is true, then how fair to both sides is it to address this? If my ancestors signed an agreement in 1840, can I then argue generations later that they didn’t mean to, and they thought it meant something else?

The recent political climate has been any pro-Crown debate around this point is racist, and we all heard from the Greens, TPM and Labour during the debates that to raise these concerns you'll be called a racist.


That's true, but how independent is the judiciary currently?

One of the challenges here is the role of the Attorney General, who appoints judges and is supposed to be apolitical. David Parker was anything but apolitical, and you can quite easily see that in the judges he appointed, and the guidance he gave to the courts around discounting sentences and being cognizant of the Maori element of sentencing.

One judge (whose family I know) is fractionally Maori. She was appointed recently and all the hoopla at her swearing in was hailing her Maori heritage. She was welcomed into the court by Maori (as in, "we welcome you to our court"), Waiatas, tracing her whakapapa etc. No acknowledgement or praise of the 88% of the rest of her blood.

So we have had an AG appointing a judiciary that is Maori, and pro-Maori. An “independent” judiciary, that makes court decisions and sets precedent for tribunal decisions and Maori co governance aspects.

So here we are now where a good portion of NZ is saying, hang on, let's discuss this and agree a way forward.

If we leave it to continue, we are kicking a festering mess down the road whereby you are either born into a separate set of laws and rights

Can you clarify - David Parker - the judges he appointed, and the guidance he gave the courts - any examples?

Aren't you missing a context of how Maori have historically been treated within a court system that is derived directly from the Crown and it's origins?

Can you provide an example of the judiciary being Maori - this implies 100%? I don't think so right?

And where you say "hang on, let's discuss this" - discuss what exactly? These are complex issues and I appreciate you have an angle, but some clarification would be good.

Because let's face it, for a good portion of European existence in New Zealand it's been pretty racist up until now. We saw that coming out in the last election, and we're seeing it now.

 

[Juno]

Just a point of clarity - NZ has a constitution already, which includes the treaty. It isn’t a single separate “constitution” document, as in say the US. Our constitution is the total sum of our treaty, our laws and case law.

The treaty itself is a fairly concise document. Normally contractual law is somewhat straightforward to apply in disputes. The debatable part of the treaty, subject to considerable contention, is that despite the "form" of the treaty, Maori have argued their ancestors “believed” the substance of the treaty was that they could enjoy continued self governance. Recent court decisions and tribunal arguments been sympathetic to this argument, and we see a partial acknowledgement in the existence of Maori electorates.

Even if this argument is true, then how fair to both sides is it to address this? If my ancestors signed an agreement in 1840, can I then argue generations later that they didn’t mean to, and they thought it meant something else?

The recent political climate has been any pro-Crown debate around this point is racist, and we all heard from the Greens, TPM and Labour during the debates that to raise these concerns you'll be called a racist.


That's true, but how independent is the judiciary currently?

One of the challenges here is the role of the Attorney General, who appoints judges and is supposed to be apolitical. David Parker was anything but apolitical, and you can quite easily see that in the judges he appointed, and the guidance he gave to the courts around discounting sentences and being cognizant of the Maori element of sentencing.

One judge (whose family I know) is fractionally Maori. She was appointed recently and all the hoopla at her swearing in was hailing her Maori heritage. She was welcomed into the court by Maori (as in, "we welcome you to our court"), Waiatas, tracing her whakapapa etc. No acknowledgement or praise of the 88% of the rest of her blood.

So we have had an AG appointing a judiciary that is Maori, and pro-Maori. An “independent” judiciary, that makes court decisions and sets precedent for tribunal decisions and Maori co governance aspects.

So here we are now where a good portion of NZ is saying, hang on, let's discuss this and agree a way forward.

If we leave it to continue, we are kicking a festering mess down the road whereby you are either born into a separate set of laws and rights

Read British colonisation history.
The only reason they pulled out of India (eventually) is because they couldn't outnumber them in the end, pulled out of Canada because not only were they trying to do to natives there the French had got there first. And so it goes on, yet they continued to claim a British empire (commonwealth) whose courts and politics instilled and upheld their concepts of society and law above all others. That was then & it still continues today.
When they came here the formed a treaty with the natives because at that time the natives outnumbered them however overall wanted to work with and prosper together with them. Before long (once their muskets, soldiers & more of their settlers arrived, they started to renege on their treaty, started to steal lands, started wars and their 'government' enacted many new laws outlawing or forbidding customary practices and processes.
The conqueror writes the rules?
Doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't mean that all of their rules are better.
Ask the Scottish and the Irish about their rights.
It also doesn't mean that democracy is only possible if everyone is treated the same in everything. Especially if its based on might is right.
An apolitical constitutionary document or Bill of rights or some such binding agrreement should be based on and include Maori rights as per the tiriti as promised, even if they had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they signed it.
Also, Te tiriti is unique to this country, there was no other such treaty signed with any other indigenous peoples that were colonised and now some want to pretend it didn't happen, none of any of it happened. Oops, too late!

 

[defensivebomb]

juju I am interested to know what was funny about my last post? I didn't intend for it to be humorous, so I am interested in why you found it funny.

A lot of users put a lot of thought into having an adult discussion on here, and I didn't try to put any humour in my post so I am genuinely interested in why you used that reaction

 

[defensivebomb]

Can you clarify - David Parker - the judges he appointed, and the guidance he gave the courts - any examples?

Aren't you missing a context of how Maori have historically been treated within a court system that is derived directly from the Crown and it's origins?

Can you provide an example of the judiciary being Maori - this implies 100%? I don't think so right?

And where you say "hang on, let's discuss this" - discuss what exactly? These are complex issues and I appreciate you have an angle, but some clarification would be good.

Because let's face it, for a good portion of European existence in New Zealand it's been pretty racist up until now. We saw that coming out in the last election, and we're seeing it now.

In 2020, David Parker announced 14 new judges. 10 of which were Maori. Now that could be coincidence. Or it could be perceived to be political appointments. I don't have an opinion on these specifically. I just know the family of one recently-appointed Maori judge well, and her experience of the swearing-in process was heavily, heavily focused on her Maori background, despite it having little relevance to her past experience. She's barely even ackowledged her ethnic makeup as it has been irrelevant. My next door neighbour is a judge. I also have a close friend, whose wife is part Maori and a partner at a law firm. She wants to be a judge and knows that a helpful fast track (recently) has been to undertake courses in Maori, which will help her selection.

My (anecdotal) comments were based on discussions with various people I know, including the above, and were provided in response to your comment around whether the judiciary, which is supposed to be independent of parliament, is not actually as independent as most people think. The appointment process is opaque, and done by a politician (who in the most recent case was very socialist). Like everything in life, it isn't clear-cut.

Because let's face it, for a good portion of European existence in New Zealand it's been pretty racist up until now

Read British colonisation history.

Most, if not, every culture has a horrendous history - slavery, wars, genocide, Nazis etc. It is an interesting dilemma - how much does (or should) today's citizens atone for the past? There are a range of answers to that, and I don't think everyone will agree on it, as there is a little bit of wrong and a little bit of right in each solution

 

[defensivebomb]

You know the main reason young Maori are not violent protesters? because our old people have schooled us to honor our side of this bullshit treaty arrangement....the very treaty the UN do not recognise in its English form because it is all lies versus the Maori version and it is a rip off, International law does not recognise the English version of any indigenous signed treaty where it differs from the indigenous translation, only racist countries like this ignore international law and keep quiet about it, ignoring their breach and making bullshit media that speaks of racial harmony.

Not trying to pick a fight. But wouldn't you agree that in light of your comments, and the response to purely the co-governance aspects of 3 Waters, that there is a range of misconceptions around the treaty? If the English version is a rip-off, and the Maori version correct, then wouldn't it be better to have a discussion on how we want to take this country forward?

 

[sup42]

Not trying to pick a fight. But wouldn't you agree that in light of your comments, and the response to purely the co-governance aspects of 3 Waters, that there is a range of misconceptions around the treaty? If the English version is a rip-off, and the Maori version correct, then wouldn't it be better to have a discussion on how we want to take this country forward?

Bro I am a peaceful man in life. I only get feisty behind the safety of a keyboard.

Been around more violence than most people here, but I prefer peace.

My reactive post is just telling the truth, I deleted it because most here will not understand the depth of rage that comes from being Maori in this country.

And the ACT crowd are stupid enough to think they can recolonize Maori under new abuses.

Good luck to them eh.

Many Maori want a fight, but they don't fight because of this stupid treaty (pakeha version has us by the balls/as such if you are not Maori and do not understand how this treaty protects you from extremism then you are living with your thick head in some ignorant sand).

As for moving forward, that is dumb without acknowledging the fastest growing ethnic group in your population is sick of being fucked over.

Why would any smart Maori trust moving forward with all that has happened and this move to take away basic recognition of our right to this country being obliterated because the next crowd who stole it want to offer new terms when the old terms were shit and imposed by them already?

Moving forward if you want the truth is about addressing the power imbalance created by the hegemony....otherwise moving forward means moving white right???

I really do not understand why some Pakeha keep pushing Maori harder and harder, I do not get that they do not see that one of the most war like people in the world are non violent because of this stupid treaty.

Go on take it away, free Maori to act like all other extremist resistance groups around the world, terrorism inbound dummies....there are thousands upon thousands of dispossessed angry Maori...go on...push them beyond....enjoy the agro.

I guess Pakeha in some quarters think that they rule by dominion, dumb kients do not realise there is an ocean of angry natives who hold back because of Maori culture values this stupid treaty - and not their pakeha laws, their institutions, or five hundred more police.

 

[MaybeTop8]

In 2020, David Parker announced 14 new judges. 10 of which were Maori. Now that could be coincidence. Or it could be perceived to be political appointments. I don't have an opinion on these specifically. I just know the family of one recently-appointed Maori judge well, and her experience of the swearing-in process was heavily, heavily focused on her Maori background, despite it having little relevance to her past experience. She's barely even ackowledged her ethnic makeup as it has been irrelevant. My next door neighbour is a judge. I also have a close friend, whose wife is part Maori and a partner at a law firm. She wants to be a judge and knows that a helpful fast track (recently) has been to undertake courses in Maori, which will help her selection.

My (anecdotal) comments were based on discussions with various people I know, including the above, and were provided in response to your comment around whether the judiciary, which is supposed to be independent of parliament, is not actually as independent as most people think. The appointment process is opaque, and done by a politician (who in the most recent case was very socialist). Like everything in life, it isn't clear-cut.



Most, if not, every culture has a horrendous history - slavery, wars, genocide, Nazis etc. It is an interesting dilemma - how much does (or should) today's citizens atone for the past? There are a range of answers to that, and I don't think everyone will agree on it, as there is a little bit of wrong and a little bit of right in each solution

Don't kid yourself that Seymour is after a conversation, he's not. This is the party of Hobson's pledge


Here's the announcement of the judges:


11 out of 159 appointed to the district court.

Māori dominate in new appointment of district court judges

The naming of 11 Māori as new district court judges will inspire rangatahi to consider a career in the law, says the Māori Law Society co-president.

www.rnz.co.nz

Hardly an overrun.

It's all about white privilege for the act party.



Btw as I've mentioned before, I'm pakeha, white nz, call me whatever. Don't know half of me, but pretty sure that originates from Europe somewhere too and the other half is made up of 6th gen nz through australia and leading back to Cornwall.

Act are out and out shit stirrers.

 

[defensivebomb]

Bro I am a peaceful man in life.

....otherwise moving forward means moving white right???

appreciate your comments, and your reaction.

A large and growing proportion of NZ is neither Maori nor white, which I think also adds to the desire for clarification regarding the Treaty as it impacts them, but they are left out of the equation. It would be interesting to see the ethnic votes broken down for Act & NZ First. I know it is on the internet somewhere but I can't be bothered finding it

Don't kid yourself that Seymour is after a conversation, he's not. This is the party of Hobson's pledge

Agreed. His "conversation" is a euphemism for something bigger

Here's the announcement of the judges:
View attachment 4933

11 out of 159 appointed to the district court.

The 159 DC judges were *existing* judges, not new appointments. The Maori Law Society President quoted in the article that it was a "change in direction", which implies the number of new Maori appointments, at 11, was surprising.

I'm not here to argue whether those appointments were right or wrong. I am saying that there is an actual or perceived political influence in the "independent" judicial system. David Parker definitely had a social justice / equality agenda. Did this extend to his AG role at the judiciary? (I think so). Judith Collins will meddle in it as well. And we go back and forth...

 

[Juno]

appreciate your comments, and your reaction.

A large and growing proportion of NZ is neither Maori nor white, which I think also adds to the desire for clarification regarding the Treaty as it impacts them, but they are left out of the equation.

They are johnny- come laetlys and their place if they want to be here is to respect what already is, not assume they have equal status except a chance to build a better life and respect their opportunity to build roots and become a new zealander so to speak. When those roots are solidified over time and they show they are 100% committed to the betterment of this country then they can call themselves true nzers.


Agreed. His "conversation" is a euphemism for something bigger

The 159 DC judges were *existing* judges, not new appointments. The Maori Law Society President quoted in the article that it was a "change in direction", which implies the number of new Maori appointments, at 11, was surprising.

I'm not here to argue whether those appointments were right or wrong. I am saying that there is an actual or perceived political influence in the "independent" judicial system. David Parker definitely had a social justice / equality agenda. Did this extend to his AG role at the judiciary? (I think so). Judith Collins will meddle in it as well. And we go back and forth...

Don't kid yourself that Seymour is after a conversation, he's not. This is the party of Hobson's pledge


Here's the announcement of the judges:
View attachment 4933

11 out of 159 appointed to the district court.

Māori dominate in new appointment of district court judges

The naming of 11 Māori as new district court judges will inspire rangatahi to consider a career in the law, says the Māori Law Society co-president.

www.rnz.co.nz

Hardly an overrun.

It's all about white privilege for the act party.
View attachment 4934


Btw as I've mentioned before, I'm pakeha, white nz, call me whatever. Don't know half of me, but pretty sure that originates from Europe somewhere too and the other half is made up of 6th gen nz through australia and leading back to Cornwall.

Act are out and out shit stirrers.

Why do people think that Maori judges are more bigoted, or lesser than other judges? The perception that they will skew the law to always favour maori is erroneous and insulting. These judges (already practicing) have gone to law school, passed the bar, gained experience and risen to a position that only judges of other ethnicities are capable or worthy of? There in a nutshell is what Maori are up against just for being Maorii?

 

[defensivebomb]

And why do people think that Maori judges are bigoted, lesser than other judges? The perception that they will skew the law to always favour maori is erroneous and insulting. These judges (already practicing) have gone to law school, past the bar, gained experience and risen to a position that only judges of other ethnicity are capable or worthy of/ There in a nutshell is what Maori are up against just for being Maori.are

I'm not accusing them of bigotry, so please don't put those words in my mouth. What I am saying is that the judiciary has political influence. It's supposed to be independent, but having an AG from the government means that it can't be free from politics. 10 Maori out of 14 appointments in late 2020 by David Parker is an example of this. That's quite a high proportion, don't you think? Or you can believe that the AG takes off their political colours when performing their role of selecting new judges. The legal fraternity knows that the judicial selection process / criteria is opaque.

One way of effecting constitutional change in NZ is via judicial precedent-setting. There has been a lot of precedents set in recent years around Crown / Maori relations. It's not a stretch to believe that a political party, (on either side) can use their AG process politically to influence courts, and therefore, the constitution.

Have a read of Te Ao Marama. The DC couldn't have put this in place without a focus on Maori by the DC. This focus is influenced by those DC judges, who are appointed by the AG

 

[marv.]

Act are out and out shit stirrers.

let me preface this by saying I DO NOT VOTE. and i don’t disagree.

I find all politicians to be absolutely deplorable fucking cunts, they’re disingenuous, they’re liers, and they’re cheaters.
they ALL lets us down and backtrack on their shit every single fucking time, yet we all live in hope.

i hate them all equally.

that said;
what is it exactly that you find more shit stirry, offensive or divisive about David Seymour than let’s say Rawiri Waititi?

 

[Worried2Death]

David Parker definitely had a social justice / equality agenda.

What's wrong with that exactly?

 

[Worried2Death]

let me preface this by saying I DO NOT VOTE. and i don’t disagree.

I find all politicians to be absolutely deplorable fucking cunts, they’re disingenuous, they’re liers, and they’re cheaters.
they ALL lets us down and backtrack on their shit every single fucking time, yet we all live in hope.

i hate them all equally.

that said;
what is it exactly that you find more shit stirry, offensive or divisive about David Seymour than let’s say Rawiri Waititi?

Seymour is acting for a small power elite with predadory offshore backers, like the Koch organisation *allegedly