Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Juno]

Again, you don't like what I say so you describe it as condescending.
I have not mentioned how many signed what treaty or the population of māori or European at the time of signing.
I haven't mentioned what happened during the next 184 years.
I stand by what I said.
A poorly written treaty by people unqualified to put such a document together, a translation at the eleventh hour using words out side the māori vocabulary and with little or no time for consideration or due diligence before signing for either party.

The whole tone of your post came across as dismissive which is in itself condescending. Apologies if you didn't mean it to be but it is how I read it.
My points were to give context - I don't think either party took it lightly but your suggestion it happened quickly or was decided in the 11th hour is erroneous - yes the writing of the māori version was the late addition but I doubt that there was no due consideration in the days, weeks, months prior by māori. Its just not how they roll, then or now. Or the colonial govt...this country was one of many british colonies, they knew exactly what to do, what outcome they wanted
Canada, usa, jamaica, india, etc etc say hello! Inexperienced? Nah, they had the template down pat for what was to come.
Not all those countries had treaties of course but those that did...surprise, surprise, they weren't worth the paper they were written on. And much blood was shed to build the british empire...
Here, they came across māori, now that's another kettle of fish. Unqualified, inexperienced in negotiation? Spend some time in hui, wananga, wharekura etc and you learn otherwise.
My point being, either or both sides didn't just decide to do a treaty and within a couple of days sign off on it...the rest that happened is a whole other story.
Seymour's in a hurry to re-invent the treaty in different words because he knows exactly what he has to do to pave the way for rape and pillage (figuratively speaking) of this country and its resources. māori and the treaty stand in his way

 

[dean]

What's actually clear is you dislike māori.

That's not true. I like David Seymour.

 

[juju]

That's not true. I like David Seymour.

Seek help

 

[dean]

The whole tone of your post came across as dismissive which is in itself condescending. Apologies if you didn't mean it to be but it is how I read it.
My points were to give context - I don't think either party took it lightly but your suggestion it happened quickly or was decided in the 11th hour is erroneous - yes the writing of the māori version was the late addition but I doubt that there was no due consideration in the days, weeks, months prior by māori. Its just not how they roll, then or now. Or the colonial govt...this country was one of many british colonies, they knew exactly what to do, what outcome they wanted
Canada, usa, jamaica, india, etc etc say hello! Inexperienced? Nah, they had the template down pat for what was to come.
Not all those countries had treaties of course but those that did...surprise, surprise, they weren't worth the paper they were written on. And much blood was shed to build the british empire...
Here, they came across māori, now that's another kettle of fish. Unqualified, inexperienced in negotiation? Spend some time in hui, wananga, wharekura etc and you learn otherwise.
My point being, either or both sides didn't just decide to do a treaty and within a couple of days sign off on it...the rest that happened is a whole other story.
Seymour's in a hurry to re-invent the treaty in different words because he knows exactly what he has to do to pave the way for rape and pillage (figuratively speaking) of this country and its resources. māori and the treaty stand in his way

If the British had thought about it so long and hard they would have sent Hobson out here with a Treaty, written in England before he left. They didn't.
He arrived in the BOI about a week before the Treaty was signed. In that time he, along with a couple of others wrote the Treaty ( English version ) and had it translated by Henry Williams and his son the night before presenting it to māori chiefs at Waitangi on Feb5, it was signed the next day.
If this is factually incorrect please tell me.

 

[Damo]

That's not true. I like David Seymour.

This made me laugh

 

[miket12]

Perhaps it's also time for a big campaign on how MMP works. Over the weekend, my brother was talking to one of his daughter's friends.

She had only been able to vote in her first election last year and decided she liked Chlöe Swarbrick so gave two ticks to the Greens in order to help get Chlöe and the Greens into Parliament. My brother then tried to explain that, because she lived in Te Atatu, she hadn't voted twice for the Greens but once for the Greens and once for Zooey Neumann, the local Green candidate. Yet, she was still adamant that the Green party received two votes because of her. DOH!!!!

 

[juju]

This made me laugh

I thought Seymour was Canadian


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1b0v4tu/canadianaccented_david_seymour_arguing_against/

 

[miket12]

I thought Seymour was Canadian


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1b0v4tu/canadianaccented_david_seymour_arguing_against/

You think you're confused..... not as much as Seymour!!!

 

[MrFrankWhite]

hybrid set up involving iwi, judges, academics, politicians, Māori language experts, etc. which will discuss it once and for all.

Are you really that naive?

 

[juju]

Are you really that naive?

That's really not as naive as the posters saying let bygones be bygones.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

That's really not as naive as the posters saying let bygones be bygones.

Im confused. we've moved from fixing inequality to monies and land owed. So which is more important? Reduce the over representation in all the negative social statistics? Or get more of what they are "owed"

 

[juju]

Im confused. we've moved from fixing inequality to monies and land owed. So which is more impoortant? Reduce the over representation in all the negative social statistics? Or get more of what they are "owed"

They're intertwined. It's really not that complicated.

 

[marv.]

Perhaps it's also time for a big campaign on how MMP works. Over the weekend, my brother was talking to one of his daughter's friends.

She had only been able to vote in her first election last year and decided she liked Chlöe Swarbrick so gave two ticks to the Greens in order to help get Chlöe and the Greens into Parliament. My brother then tried to explain that, because she lived in Te Atatu, she hadn't voted twice for the Greens but once for the Greens and once for Zooey Neumann, the local Green candidate. Yet, she was still adamant that the Green party received two votes because of her. DOH!!!!

jesus christ.
no wonder they want to lower the voting age.

 

[Juno]

If the British had thought about it so long and hard they would have sent Hobson out here with a Treaty, written in England before he left. They didn't.
He arrived in the BOI about a week before the Treaty was signed. In that time he, along with a couple of others wrote the Treaty ( English version ) and had it translated by Henry Williams and his son the night before presenting it to māori chiefs at Waitangi on Feb5, it was signed the next day.
If this is factually incorrect please tell me.

He had visited here 3 yrs prior from Oz and wrote a report to his govt in england saying how it was ripe for settlement/ land acqisition (I'm paraphrasing a little) and how the natives and those pakeha already there were fighting amongst themselves and with each other, needing law and order etc. From there he ended up being made an authority to come here, take charge and resolve all that. In 1840.
Naive to think a treaty of some sort to do all of the above wasn't in the offing prior to his arrival in 1840. Especially considering missives took 9 months to go one way, so 18months in all to get a response?
As before, we were one of the last in a line of much colonising. Or do you actually think he thought of it within days of arriving?
Also, given that māori were already trading and sailing to Oz - whalers had been in these waters for quite some time before 1840. māori were quick to learn about trade between the 2 countries and beyond - they weren't too dumb to hear, see, and learn about opportunity or how things worked for colonials.
Some māori had a good command of english by then and some colonials the same re. te reo Pretty sure the treaty was not as ad hoc as what you are implying.
Pretty sure the addition of the te reo version, while not available at first and while perhaps a late addition was written exactly as māori intended it to be, and meant what it says. E.g. the addition/ change of 'kawangatanga' for government or governance - a transliterated word, not a native one to emphasize the colonial role as opposed to their own tino ranatiratanga.
Anyway...enough already for me.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

They're intertwined. It's really not that complicated.

Seem to be.
Total money and lands given to Māori are increasing year on year cumulatively, ($2.2b by 2018, and then it suddenly gets very hard to find a running total ) and yet Māori as a % of an every growing prison population is INCREASING.

Prison facts and statistics - March 2024

www.corrections.govt.nz

 

[dean]

He had visited here 3 yrs prior from Oz and wrote a report to his govt in england saying how it was ripe for settlement/ land acqisition (I'm paraphrasing a little) and how the natives and those pakeha already there were fighting amongst themselves and with each other, needing law and order etc. From there he ended up being made an authority to come here, take charge and resolve all that. In 1840.
Naive to think a treaty of some sort to do all of the above wasn't in the offing prior to his arrival in 1840. Especially considering missives took 9 months to go one way, so 18months in all to get a response?
As before, we were one of the last in a line of much colonising. Or do you actually think he thought of it within days of arriving?
Also, given that māori were already trading and sailing to Oz - whalers had been in these waters for quite some time before 1840. māori were quick to learn about trade between the 2 countries and beyond - they weren't too dumb to hear, see, and learn about opportunity or how things worked for colonials.
Some māori had a good command of english by then and some colonials the same re. te reo Pretty sure the treaty was not as ad hoc as what you are implying.
Pretty sure the addition of the te reo version, while not available at first and while perhaps a late addition was written exactly as māori intended it to be, and meant what it says. E.g. the addition/ change of 'kawangatanga' for government or governance - a transliterated word, not a native one to emphasize the colonial role as opposed to their own tino ranatiratanga.
Anyway...enough already for me.

I agree with everything you say here except when you say a Treaty of sort was in the offing prior to Hobson leaving England.
If that were the case, it would not have needed Busby joining Hobson and Freeman to write the Treaty when he arrived which was the end of January 1840.
The māori version was written by Henry Williams and his son on Feb 4 1840. I don't think māori had any input.

I suggest at least some did not fully understand what they were signing and did so to some degree under encouragement from missionaries.

 

[miket12]

I see that the $3 billion "tax cuts" to landlords should now be used to cut child poverty by using that $3 billion per year, according to the Greens Child Reduction spokesman Ricardo Menéndez March. Problem with Mr. March's math's is the $3 billion landlords "tax cuts" are over a four-year period while the child poverty reduction target requires $ 3 billion each year for four years... meaning $12 billion. Or is he expecting us to believe that even though the interest rates are falling (therefore less of a "tax cut" for landlords), that the amount the government is "losing" each year has actually gone up 400%!!!

While we definitely need to reduce child poverty, tax cuts and economic recovery, as suggested by Louise Upston, Child Poverty Reduction Minister, alone isn't going to do it.

As hard as this is for the government and the opposition to understand it's not one thing or another that will reduce child poverty BUT a combination of more money, more resources, an improving economy, better job market, improved educational results, intergenerational change of mindset and a ton of other things. Until our political masters realise that, there will be no significant drop in child poverty.

Also, how many times can the $3 billion landlord "tax cuts" be used? Last week, it was going to save the health system; this week, child poverty; a few week, the climate; before that, the electrical system, before that, local water supply; before that, new ferries. Funny, I thought once it's gone, it's gone.... it can't keep on being re-spent.

 

[Garry Saloon]

My points are.
We are looking at events 200 years ago through todays lens.
Early contact between māori and Europeans was mutally beneficial.

Sorry what happened 200 years ago? You seem to think the treaty is an event that happened and that time has passed and māori should get over it. No. It is an agreement that was signed. There's no expiry date on it. It has been or should have been in effect this whole time. It has been breached over and over again. It has never been properly honoured. It's a present day issue.

 

[juju]

Seem to be.
Total money and lands given to Māori are increasing year on year cumulatively, ($2.2b by 2018, and then it suddenly gets very hard to find a running total ) and yet Māori as a % of an every growing prison population is INCREASING.

Prison facts and statistics - March 2024

www.corrections.govt.nz

The first treaty settlements were sorted in the late 80s.

So conflating prison data between 2018 and 2024 withe regards to treaty settlements is a pretty ridiculous.

The percentage 3% could be explained by any number of topics- housing affordability being its worst ever, a recession, a change in policing etc etc

 

[Garry Saloon]

I see that the $3 billion "tax cuts" to landlords should now be used to cut child poverty by using that $3 billion per year, according to the Greens Child Reduction spokesman Ricardo Menéndez March. Problem with Mr. March's math's is the $3 billion landlords "tax cuts" are over a four-year period while the child poverty reduction target requires $ 3 billion each year for four years... meaning $12 billion. Or is he expecting us to believe that even though the interest rates are falling (therefore less of a "tax cut" for landlords), that the amount the government is "losing" each year has actually gone up 400%!!!

While we definitely need to reduce child poverty, tax cuts and economic recovery, as suggested by Louise Upston, Child Poverty Reduction Minister, alone isn't going to do it.

As hard as this is for the government and the opposition to understand it's not one thing or another that will reduce child poverty BUT a combination of more money, more resources, an improving economy, better job market, improved educational results, intergenerational change of mindset and a ton of other things. Until our political masters realise that, there will be no significant drop in child poverty.

Also, how many times can the $3 billion landlord "tax cuts" be used? Last week, it was going to save the health system; this week, child poverty; a few week, the climate; before that, the electrical system, before that, local water supply; before that, new ferries. Funny, I thought once it's gone, it's gone.... it can't keep on being re-spent.

Any one of those things would be better than giving it to landlords who by definition are wealthy and don't need it. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.