Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

NZWarriors.com

How can you unilaterally change a contract? Don't both parties need to agree changes?
So in the treaty, what were the principles? Who can define them? how was co-governance ever bought into it? With what authority?

Can only the Queen and those original 500 Maori define them?

If it was between Maori and the England (the treaty made Maori English subjects). Where is the NZ govt in all this?

Doesn’t the govt represent Maori, the queen and all of us through elections? Don’t more Maori voting for National than voted for the Maori party give the incumbent govt a mandate to govern?

Again, I support the concept we’re all equal; however don’t like the ACT solution but think it’s all pointless anyway and a show as it’s already a dead bill.
 
So in the treaty, what were the principles? Who can define them? how was co-governance ever bought into it? With what authority?

Can only the Queen and those original 500 Maori define them?

If it was between Maori and the England (the treaty made Maori English subjects). Where is the NZ govt in all this?

Doesn’t the govt represent Maori, the queen and all of us through elections? Don’t more Maori voting for National than voted for the Maori party give the incumbent govt a mandate to govern?

Again, I support the concept we’re all equal; however don’t like the ACT solution but think it’s all pointless anyway and a show as it’s already a dead bill.
The issue of co-governance will not go away when the ACT bill is defeated.
Eventually the country will have to confront it.
 
The issue of co-governance will not go away when the ACT bill is defeated.
Eventually the country will have to confront it.
Perhaps the two treaties partners can work towards that.

Rather than the Act Party and it's donors ramming it down the countries throat.
 
Perhaps New Zealanders can decide.
The issue was first raised by David Lange in the late 80's.
Perhaps they should, if the policy was actually well thought out and constructed in collaboration with the treaty partner

& not a bill thats rubbished by both sides of the political divide, rubbished by the legal community, rubbished by the academic community, rubbished by church leaders etc

Is there actually any well thought out argument in support of Seymours proposal anywhere? Can you post it?
 
If it was between Maori and the England (the treaty made Maori English subjects). Where is the NZ govt in all this?
I believe it was with the governor General I believe. I cbf looking it up but I would expect that the crown who is now the nz govt is now the representative for the former royalty
 
Doesn’t the govt represent Maori, the queen and all of us through elections? Don’t more Maori voting for National than voted for the Maori party give the incumbent govt a mandate to govern?
Sure but governing doesn't mean breaking contracts because you feel like it. If you had agreed to sell your house to the crown for a million bucks and had a contract and David Seymour wanted to have a debate about paying you 10c instead would you support that coz a bunch of people like you voted for him?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps they should, if the policy was actually well thought out and constructed in collaboration with the treaty partner

& not a bill thats rubbished by both sides of the political divide, rubbished by the legal community, rubbished by the academic community, rubbished by church leaders etc

Is there actually any well thought out argument in support of Seymours proposal anywhere? Can you post it?
Let the public decide.
 
Sure but governing doesn't mean breaking contracts because you feel like it. If you had agreed to sell your house to the crown for a road for a million bucks and had a contract and David Seymour wanted to have a debate about paying you 10c instead would you support that coz a bunch of people like you voted for him?
What contract is going to be broken?
 
    Nobody is reading this thread right now.
Back
Top Bottom