Fuck donβt tell that to the Wiz, heβll go all apoplectic
Politics π³οΈ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
One of those on the hikoi had a good sign
David see more
Say less
David see more
Say less
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #12,663
Hikoi - Reporters for TVNZ and RNZ joining in the protest; haka generally positive coverage despite being completely inappropriate; little comments about the affects on traffic; teachers found to positively support kids having the day off to attend.
Tamakiβs flag protests - negative articles about disruption to traffic; negative police comment; an impressive haka done and ignored.
The double standards of media in NZ is laughable
Speaking of Tamaki - whatβs this loopy βMake NZ great againβ. Politicians arenβt even trying to hide they are going full Trump.
Tamakiβs flag protests - negative articles about disruption to traffic; negative police comment; an impressive haka done and ignored.
The double standards of media in NZ is laughable
Speaking of Tamaki - whatβs this loopy βMake NZ great againβ. Politicians arenβt even trying to hide they are going full Trump.
That stunt probably won't have helped the case he's currently on trial for, added a few more charges.Tamakiβs flag protests - negative articles about disruption to traffic; negative police comment; an impressive haka done and ignored.
The double standards of media in NZ is laughable
Speaking of Tamaki - whatβs this loopy βMake NZ great againβ. Politicians arenβt even trying to hide they are going full Trump.
tyrael
π»
Probably because one group is fighting inequality and the other group wants to go back to when corporal punishment was ok, dawn raids happened, and smoking anywhere including classrooms were ok.Hikoi - Reporters for TVNZ and RNZ joining in the protest; haka generally positive coverage despite being completely inappropriate; little comments about the affects on traffic; teachers found to positively support kids having the day off to attend.
Tamakiβs flag protests - negative articles about disruption to traffic; negative police comment; an impressive haka done and ignored.
The double standards of media in NZ is laughable
Speaking of Tamaki - whatβs this loopy βMake NZ great againβ. Politicians arenβt even trying to hide they are going full Trump.
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #12,666
What he wants, to be a martyr. Just like his idol - Trump.
Those bogus charges for gathering during covid was just a political hit job like those against Trumps Jan 6 peaceful gathering?
Seems he always wanted NZ to have a politician like Trump and heβs stepped up: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/88812190/destiny-church-leader-brian-tamaki-backs-president-trump
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #12,667
You would think the media would publish the news then and let the public decide.
The problem with our news is itβs all just opinion now.
As are the posts on this forum
tyrael
π»
Would you have blown up if Jacinda had 8 friends (not family) over for dinner during the lockdowns?
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #12,670
Well our health minister at the time went for illegal bike rides and trips to the beach and nothing happened
That post was a bit of hyperbole. The peaceful protests on 6th Jan was a clue
wizard of Tauranga
π
- Thread starter
- #12,672
Explained: The Treaty Principles Bill
Lloyd Burr
Lloyd Burr
November 14, 2024 β’04:59pm
What is it and why is it causing such a massive backlash? Will it re-write the actual Treaty of Waitangi? Erase MΔori rights? Or is it a storm in a teacup? Explainer Editor Lloyd Burr breaks it down.
Angst has been building for more than a year, itβs divided the Government, Crown lawyers are spooked, and thereβs a mammoth hΔ«koi to Parliament all because of the ACT Partyβs Treaty Principles Bill.
So what exactly is it, what would it do, and why is it causing such an uproar?
Does the bill rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi?
No, not literally. Nothing can re-write the Treaty of Waitangi. Itβs one of our key founding documents, itβs an agreement between around 540 MΔori chiefs and the British Crown, and its 9 rat-nibbled pages are under lock and key in a special storage unit at the National Library in Wellington.
But it would change how the Treaty is interpreted. There is a problem when it comes to interpretation because the Treaty is in both English and Te Reo MΔori. Because Te Reo was an oral language and translating it was in its infancy in 1840, the two versions of the Treaty say different things.
The English version essentially says:
Article 1: MΔori cede the sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain
Article 2: MΔori give the Crown an exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell, and in return are guaranteed exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands, forests, fisheries and other properties.
Article 3: MΔori are given the rights and privileges of British subjects.
The points of difference in the Te Reo MΔori version were in articles 1 and 2. Article 3 was accurate.
βSovereigntyβ was translated as βkΔwanatangaβ which means βgovernanceβ and many chiefs believed they were ceding the government of the country but maintaining the rights to manage their affairs.
βUndisturbed possession of propertiesβ was translated as βtino rangatiratangaβ of βtaonga katoaβ. This means βchieftainship/full authorityβ over βall treasured thingsβ (which arenβt always tangible).
Does the bill re-interpret the Treaty of Waitangi?
Yes. Because there are differing interpretations of the Treaty, the bill aims to create an interpretation - or principles - that everyone agrees upon. This is what the bill proposes:
Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws: (a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises and will respect and protect the rights that hapΕ« and iwi MΔori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. (2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to (a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
The full text is here.
Wait, arenβt there already Treaty Principles?
Different politicians, lawyers, tribunals, and courts have used βTreaty principlesβ for decades. This started in 1975 when the Waitangi Tribunal was established allowing MΔori to bring claims against the Crown when it was being βinconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangiβ. This was due to the many breaches of the Treaty by the Crown since it was signed. But these principles werenβt listed so it was up to the Tribunal to interpret what they were, based on the spirit of the Treaty.
New laws created by numerous governments have alluded to the Treaty principles as well. Members of the judiciary have to interpret what the principles are.
In 1989, David Langeβs Labour government developed Treaty principles:
The government has the right to govern and make laws.
Iwi have the right to organise as iwi, and under the law, control their resources as their own.
All New Zealanders are equal before the law.
Both the government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern.
The government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.
Lange was accused by some of trying to re-write the Treaty.
In 2006, Winston Petersβ New Zealand First Party introduced the βPrinciples of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Billβ but it was defeated by Parliament (Current NZF MP Shane Jones was a Labour MP at the time and vehemently opposed it). Interestingly, the party still wants to do this and it was promised by National in its 2023 Coalition Agreement.
Whatβs Seymourβs rationale for this bill?
Equal rights. He believes the current system has led to a disparity in legal and political rights of MΔori and non-MΔori. βThis has led to co-governance arrangements and even racial quotas within public institutions,β his bill-specific website says.
βCreative interpretations of the βprinciplesβ of the Treaty have been used to justify offering different access to taxpayer-funded services, guaranteed positions on government boards, and even a separate healthcare authority, all based on peopleβs ancestry,β it says.
Seymour says there are two options: Parliament can define the principles, or the courts can keep trying to define them, allowing them to change over time.
βThe modern βpartnershipβ interpretation of the Treaty, which divides us into two groups with different rights based on ancestry, is an invention of the unelected judiciary and would not have passed any democratic process,β he says.
Seymour says heβs having this debate because ACT is the only party brave enough to do so.
What are the arguments against the bill?
In defining the Treaty principles, many argue Seymour is indeed redefining the Treaty itself and rewriting a contract long after it was signed. NgΔti Toa leader Helmut Modlik has been spearheading the debate against the bill and says itβs preposterous that one of the Treatyβs signatories - in Seymour representing the Crown - can try to unilaterally change it.
βUnwinding the path of truth and reconciliation that weβve been on for four or five decades is not a direction of travel that anyone in the MΔori community that Iβve met is interested in contemplating,β he told NBR.
There are concerns about the principles Seymour has devised too, with Ministry of Justice officials saying parts of them are inconsistent with the Treaty itself.
The Waitangi Tribunal says the proposed principles breached the existing principles of βpartnership and reciprocity, active protection, good government, equity, redress, and the article 2 guarantee of rangatiratangaβ. It also found them flawed, disingenuous, and that they distorted the Treaty itself.
βMΔori would be particularly prejudiced by the extinguishment of tino rangatiratanga in a legal sense if the Bill were to be enacted,β its most recent finding states.
A group of 42 Kingβs Counsel lawyers have written to the Prime Minister, saying the bill will essentially rewrite the Treaty.
Other arguments are that the debate is divisive, dishonourable, and a distraction for the Government given itβs unlikely to pass the second reading.
Will it pass through Parliament?
It passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday (after a protest haka and a suspended Parliament) because the National-ACT-NZ First coalition agreement required that. But at its second reading, itβs likely to be thrown in the bin. Hereβs what the parties have said:
The National Party. Leader and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the bill is not helping get the country back on track. βYou do not go and negate - with a single stroke of a pen - 184 years of debate and discussion with a bill that I think is very simplistic.β
The Labour Party. Leader Chris Hipkins says itβs βbased on outdated and incorrect perspectives that do not reflect the spirit or words of the Treatyβ. Its MP Willie Jackson says the bill βis a political stunt that prolongs discrimination against MΔoriβ adding it will βgive mΔori rights and indigenous rights to everyoneβ.
The Green Party. Co-leader Chloe Swarbrick says: βTe Tiriti is foundational and enduring. Honouring Te Tiriti is the constitutional obligation of every Prime Minister.β
ACT. Leader David Seymour says: βWe need to have this discussion. A lot of people donβt want to have it, a lot of people are scared to have it. But we need to have it.β
NZ First. De facto deputy leader Shane Jones says: βThere are a range of New Zealanders who have confidence in David [Seymour] and his vision. It is not a vision that NZ First either will uphold or share.β
Te PΔti MΔori. Co-leader Rawiri Waititi says: βThe only people who can make changes in the agreement are the parties who signed it," referring to mΔori chiefs and the monarch of Britain. "Tell me David Seymour, which one of those are you?β
Is everyone in New Zealand the same in the eyes of the law?
Should MΔori be treated differently in the eyes of the law than non-MΔori? This is the crux of Seymourβs reasoning - but is it as simple as heβs making it sound?
Generally speaking, this is inherently a political and philosophical debate based on how to justly run a society, while righting historical wrongs.
Centrist or centre-right politicians typically advocate for equality. That is, everyone gets the same opportunity to achieve.
Progressives typically advocate for equity in outcomes. Why is this different? Well, some argue that treating everyone the same isn't fair because some people start in disadvantaged positions.
The situation in New Zealand, given our history and make up, makes this debate much more profound.
In a piece a few years ago on Stuff, Dr Claire Charters, of the University of Auckland, put it this way: "MΔori became the minority in New Zealand, and there hasnβt been equality in terms of power-sharing and decision-making."
Nationalβs deputy leader Nicola Willis says the bill is a βcrude way of dealing with a delicate topicβ which essentially echoes her leaderβs comments that itβs βtoo simplisticβ. That βdelicate topicβ refers to decades of institutional and inter-generational discrimination of mΔori that has left them much worse off in nearly every social statistic that is measured.
The bill aims to provide equality but it seems to be missing something: equity.
- Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
Lloyd Burr
Lloyd Burr
November 14, 2024 β’04:59pm
What is it and why is it causing such a massive backlash? Will it re-write the actual Treaty of Waitangi? Erase MΔori rights? Or is it a storm in a teacup? Explainer Editor Lloyd Burr breaks it down.
Angst has been building for more than a year, itβs divided the Government, Crown lawyers are spooked, and thereβs a mammoth hΔ«koi to Parliament all because of the ACT Partyβs Treaty Principles Bill.
So what exactly is it, what would it do, and why is it causing such an uproar?
Does the bill rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi?
No, not literally. Nothing can re-write the Treaty of Waitangi. Itβs one of our key founding documents, itβs an agreement between around 540 MΔori chiefs and the British Crown, and its 9 rat-nibbled pages are under lock and key in a special storage unit at the National Library in Wellington.
But it would change how the Treaty is interpreted. There is a problem when it comes to interpretation because the Treaty is in both English and Te Reo MΔori. Because Te Reo was an oral language and translating it was in its infancy in 1840, the two versions of the Treaty say different things.
The English version essentially says:
Article 1: MΔori cede the sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain
Article 2: MΔori give the Crown an exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell, and in return are guaranteed exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands, forests, fisheries and other properties.
Article 3: MΔori are given the rights and privileges of British subjects.
The points of difference in the Te Reo MΔori version were in articles 1 and 2. Article 3 was accurate.
βSovereigntyβ was translated as βkΔwanatangaβ which means βgovernanceβ and many chiefs believed they were ceding the government of the country but maintaining the rights to manage their affairs.
βUndisturbed possession of propertiesβ was translated as βtino rangatiratangaβ of βtaonga katoaβ. This means βchieftainship/full authorityβ over βall treasured thingsβ (which arenβt always tangible).
Does the bill re-interpret the Treaty of Waitangi?
Yes. Because there are differing interpretations of the Treaty, the bill aims to create an interpretation - or principles - that everyone agrees upon. This is what the bill proposes:
Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws: (a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises and will respect and protect the rights that hapΕ« and iwi MΔori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. (2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to (a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
The full text is here.
Wait, arenβt there already Treaty Principles?
Different politicians, lawyers, tribunals, and courts have used βTreaty principlesβ for decades. This started in 1975 when the Waitangi Tribunal was established allowing MΔori to bring claims against the Crown when it was being βinconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangiβ. This was due to the many breaches of the Treaty by the Crown since it was signed. But these principles werenβt listed so it was up to the Tribunal to interpret what they were, based on the spirit of the Treaty.
New laws created by numerous governments have alluded to the Treaty principles as well. Members of the judiciary have to interpret what the principles are.
In 1989, David Langeβs Labour government developed Treaty principles:
The government has the right to govern and make laws.
Iwi have the right to organise as iwi, and under the law, control their resources as their own.
All New Zealanders are equal before the law.
Both the government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern.
The government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.
Lange was accused by some of trying to re-write the Treaty.
In 2006, Winston Petersβ New Zealand First Party introduced the βPrinciples of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Billβ but it was defeated by Parliament (Current NZF MP Shane Jones was a Labour MP at the time and vehemently opposed it). Interestingly, the party still wants to do this and it was promised by National in its 2023 Coalition Agreement.
Whatβs Seymourβs rationale for this bill?
Equal rights. He believes the current system has led to a disparity in legal and political rights of MΔori and non-MΔori. βThis has led to co-governance arrangements and even racial quotas within public institutions,β his bill-specific website says.
βCreative interpretations of the βprinciplesβ of the Treaty have been used to justify offering different access to taxpayer-funded services, guaranteed positions on government boards, and even a separate healthcare authority, all based on peopleβs ancestry,β it says.
Seymour says there are two options: Parliament can define the principles, or the courts can keep trying to define them, allowing them to change over time.
βThe modern βpartnershipβ interpretation of the Treaty, which divides us into two groups with different rights based on ancestry, is an invention of the unelected judiciary and would not have passed any democratic process,β he says.
Seymour says heβs having this debate because ACT is the only party brave enough to do so.
What are the arguments against the bill?
In defining the Treaty principles, many argue Seymour is indeed redefining the Treaty itself and rewriting a contract long after it was signed. NgΔti Toa leader Helmut Modlik has been spearheading the debate against the bill and says itβs preposterous that one of the Treatyβs signatories - in Seymour representing the Crown - can try to unilaterally change it.
βUnwinding the path of truth and reconciliation that weβve been on for four or five decades is not a direction of travel that anyone in the MΔori community that Iβve met is interested in contemplating,β he told NBR.
There are concerns about the principles Seymour has devised too, with Ministry of Justice officials saying parts of them are inconsistent with the Treaty itself.
The Waitangi Tribunal says the proposed principles breached the existing principles of βpartnership and reciprocity, active protection, good government, equity, redress, and the article 2 guarantee of rangatiratangaβ. It also found them flawed, disingenuous, and that they distorted the Treaty itself.
βMΔori would be particularly prejudiced by the extinguishment of tino rangatiratanga in a legal sense if the Bill were to be enacted,β its most recent finding states.
A group of 42 Kingβs Counsel lawyers have written to the Prime Minister, saying the bill will essentially rewrite the Treaty.
Other arguments are that the debate is divisive, dishonourable, and a distraction for the Government given itβs unlikely to pass the second reading.
Will it pass through Parliament?
It passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday (after a protest haka and a suspended Parliament) because the National-ACT-NZ First coalition agreement required that. But at its second reading, itβs likely to be thrown in the bin. Hereβs what the parties have said:
The National Party. Leader and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the bill is not helping get the country back on track. βYou do not go and negate - with a single stroke of a pen - 184 years of debate and discussion with a bill that I think is very simplistic.β
The Labour Party. Leader Chris Hipkins says itβs βbased on outdated and incorrect perspectives that do not reflect the spirit or words of the Treatyβ. Its MP Willie Jackson says the bill βis a political stunt that prolongs discrimination against MΔoriβ adding it will βgive mΔori rights and indigenous rights to everyoneβ.
The Green Party. Co-leader Chloe Swarbrick says: βTe Tiriti is foundational and enduring. Honouring Te Tiriti is the constitutional obligation of every Prime Minister.β
ACT. Leader David Seymour says: βWe need to have this discussion. A lot of people donβt want to have it, a lot of people are scared to have it. But we need to have it.β
NZ First. De facto deputy leader Shane Jones says: βThere are a range of New Zealanders who have confidence in David [Seymour] and his vision. It is not a vision that NZ First either will uphold or share.β
Te PΔti MΔori. Co-leader Rawiri Waititi says: βThe only people who can make changes in the agreement are the parties who signed it," referring to mΔori chiefs and the monarch of Britain. "Tell me David Seymour, which one of those are you?β
Is everyone in New Zealand the same in the eyes of the law?
Should MΔori be treated differently in the eyes of the law than non-MΔori? This is the crux of Seymourβs reasoning - but is it as simple as heβs making it sound?
Generally speaking, this is inherently a political and philosophical debate based on how to justly run a society, while righting historical wrongs.
Centrist or centre-right politicians typically advocate for equality. That is, everyone gets the same opportunity to achieve.
Progressives typically advocate for equity in outcomes. Why is this different? Well, some argue that treating everyone the same isn't fair because some people start in disadvantaged positions.
The situation in New Zealand, given our history and make up, makes this debate much more profound.
In a piece a few years ago on Stuff, Dr Claire Charters, of the University of Auckland, put it this way: "MΔori became the minority in New Zealand, and there hasnβt been equality in terms of power-sharing and decision-making."
Nationalβs deputy leader Nicola Willis says the bill is a βcrude way of dealing with a delicate topicβ which essentially echoes her leaderβs comments that itβs βtoo simplisticβ. That βdelicate topicβ refers to decades of institutional and inter-generational discrimination of mΔori that has left them much worse off in nearly every social statistic that is measured.
The bill aims to provide equality but it seems to be missing something: equity.
- Stuff
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
Last edited:
juju
π₯
Is this you Karen?
WhangΓrei councillor under fire after leaving Γ’racistΓ’ comment on hΓΒ«koi post
The inaccurate comment about the estimated 5000 people crossing the bridge has attracted significant negative attention online.
roguei
π₯
Do you have this kind of attitude to all protests? Or just these kinds of ones?
Mr. Brownstone
β
Look I wasnβt being serious, however when I see the school kids protesting about climate change I do wonder why they arenβt at school.
Just a bit of casual racism for the lols?
Mr. Brownstone
β
Fair call, have deleted the post. Wasnβt my intention to upset anyone, apologies to anyone that it offended.
tyrael
π»
It's more like 42-55k
Seymour still says not what most New Zealanders think.
With his same argument. Most New Zealanders didn't vote ACT.
