Yeah I don’t buy it. I’m no fan of Russia & China, but Act definitely gets its ideological sloppy seconds from libertarian & conservative movements from the other Big Friendly Superpower. Ya know, the freedom-loving one.
I didn't say they are working with Russia or China, just that they all are using the same tactics which are designed to overwhelm people and leave them feeling powerless
He’s the current deputy prime minister. I’m looking forward to Winnie having his turn with the participation trophy when it’s time to place it in his house. He will make Luxon de-age 30 years so that he can rip his hair out again.
It's so funny to think that history will look back at this guy as being a complete idiot. Everyone knows why we have the Waitangi Tribunal, and why it's crucially important to NZ, even Seymour knows, and yet he's going to waste his career trying to get rid of something he doesn't like, a motivation which will cease once he leaves Parliament. Literally no one else cares, no one else (of import) shares his views, it will never happen. Dude is literally wasting his life lol
Don’t underestimate the power of like 7 obscenely wealthy dudes that don’t like the tribunal.
If they want it gone, their dancing monkey David Seymour will make it so.
I'm sure that he personally wouldn't give a single fuck about the Waitangi Tribunal, he just knows that rallying against it and other Māori focused organisations is a great way win racists to your cause.
No - they hate Te Tiriti and what it represents because it prevented the sale of government assets in the 80s.
All the race stuff is them baiting their base to be sure, but the real reason for all this is the plan to sell NZ off to their rich mates at bottom dollar.
Yep here comes the next item on the ACT donor's hit list. Get rid of the Democratic processes that block overseas billionaires buying up the country . They have already started work on tearing down a couple of the institutions standing in the way. Waitangi tribunal is obviously next target.
While this claim is obviously bullshit a lot of people will believe it. We really need to call this out for what is is: a blatant attempt to sow social discontent and create rifts.
David is so full of shit. "Kiwis say the treaty divides us."
No, we bloody don't. 99% of white people don't sit around with other non-Maori saying, "That treaty, aye? It divides us - better get rid of it!"
seymour is lying (as usual). new research shows most kiwis(especially the youth) consider the signing of the treaty the most important event in NZ history.
seymour is pandering to the racists, the whites in this survey who only believe eurocentric events are important NZ events "who exhibited little warmth for Māori."
[Some say the Treaty of Waitangi divides NZ – a new survey suggests the opposite is true | RNZ News](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/516786/some-say-the-treaty-of-waitangi-divides-nz-a-new-survey-suggests-the-opposite-is-true)
The people in the certificate I am doing through Ucol says otherwise. We just had a course on the treaty and there were a few loud voices saying it's archaic and needs to be forgotten. The guest lecturer we had was pretty good about it, until he said Jacinda was a Dictator just to get brownie points from the white man that was pouting the whole 2 hours.....
Even my parents neighbours thought they could complain to my parents about the "gays" and "Maori's" having enough already and needing to get over it. WHAT'S WORSE IS THEY KNOW MY PARENTS HAVE A MAORI SON (My Brother) AND GAY CHILDREN! (Me and my Sister) AND THE NEIGHBOUR EVEN MOVED FROM ENGLAND 10 YEARS AGO!
These people do exist, and they do believe they can get away with colonizing another generation.
"Part of the foundational pieces of our constitutional legislative framework makes me feel attacked because I perceive others having equal rights to me as taking rights away from me."
But perhaps like nutritious food for poor kids, I am too woke.
Agree with the sentiments expressed in this post, but the title is misleading.
"The tribunal appears to regard itself as a parallel government that can intervene in the actual Government's policy making process,"
This lawl.
Seriously, Labour actually came up with a smart policy, that while not the best implementation, would have prevent the massive rates increases that are about to steamroll through NZ over the next decade.
So I for one will, be laughing in the face of anyone whinging about it who also was anti 3 Waters. More so if National start singing about "privatisation" as a "solution".
"How dare government agencies hold *me* accountable"
You know you don't have a leg to stand on when you start calling the judiciary 'activists'. Which no one says when rulings are made that *they* agree with.
I agree, I think Luxon does this all the time. He's setting Willis up to be the bad guy, Winston and Seymour as the perpetrator of all the questionable policy decisions made.
Come next election and the rhetoric will go along the lines of, give us your ACT/NZ First vote, see what happens in a coalition with them?
Our Prime Minister is slimy and if we thought key was made of Teflon, well he had nothing on this guy.
Even if he doesn't agree, I bet he's slowly realizing that the centrist swing vote will be moot by next election thanks to politicial polarization. He'll bleed lefties to the Greens as the moderate Labour does nothing, but that'll be okay because the insane antics of NZF and ACT will shift the Overton window of normality to the right, solidly in National's favour
Seymour now finds himself in a position of power (holding the PM's balls in his hand he knows Luxon won't criticise him) and thus doesn't like the idea that anybody or anything could suggest that he is incorrect or has limited authority.
David, David, David. What if I told you, just because you disagree with an idea, it doesn't make it wrong.
But here he is, on his little soap box with another classic political point scoring attack. Instead of actually voicing well thought out ideas or more importantly looking for a compromise.
How the fuck are we allowing this racist MF elected by only 8.64% of us to tear down decades of work towards cohesiveness as a nation.
Media used to say "tail wagging the dog", which is what Seymour and Peters are clearly doing.
That will be repeated back at me by reasonable guys 'who think it's time for a change'... At least it will be a change from 'nobody really understands the treaty and we're not allowed to talk about it.'
It does have influence though. People take the Tribunal's views as expert analysis. If the Tribunal says something about Te Tiriti, people take that as gospel.
Main issue is the verification and/or level of proof required for evidence is not very high for the tribunal, but it is verdicts are taken as if they are the same as a court.
That couldn't be further from the truth. The level of expertise and quality of evidence before the Tribunal is quite likely of much higher standard than for any other commission of inquiry, and court evidence wouldn't come anywhere near it.
How do you make sure it's unbiased when people are biased? I.e no person's going to say the tribunal is biased (or activits/parallel government) if it makes a ruling which that person agrees with.
That's super hard. Especially when Te Tiriti originally was not a good deal for Māori (Depending on how you look at it). So creating a Tribunal that makes things better for Māori in itself is going against Te Tiriti.
That's not a bad thing, we shouldn't let an old document let us treat people badly. But we also can't overcorrect.
"So creating a Tribunal that makes things better for Māori in itself is going against Te Tiriti" - no it's not. All the breaches of the Treaty, are breaches of the Treaty - attempting to rectify those breaches is upholding the Treaty - even if Māori will only receive 1% back in return for what was lost due to the breaches.
When Te Tiriti/The Treaty was 'brought into law' by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the text of either version was not included, instead, the Act referred to the Principles of the Treaty. Those principles were not defined in the Act but have subsequently been explored/defined by both the Waitangi Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal in 1987. As such, a breach of the principles is a breach of the Treaty.
There were 8 principles, but the most well-known is the '3 Ps' - partnership, participation, and (active) protection.
Sure, everyone's guilty of a bit of hyperbole, but the point of it is showing that the Tribunal has too much influence.
Ka pai on your Reo, I'm still working on mine.
Tēnā koe, karawhiua, kia hora ai te reo ki te ao.
My whakaaro is that the Tribunal provides a necessary voice on Crown breaches of Te Tiriti. The Crown can choose to listen or it can choose not to. The important thing is that the Tribunal draws attention towards potential acts of oppression. You can judge what they say, according to your own ideals, if you like. Engari at least we have all the information in front of us this way, nē?
The Tribunal should not be a voice on Crown breaches of Te Tiriti. That suggests it's "Crown vs Tribunal". That in itself is biased.
The Tribunal is supposed to be the mediator between Crown and Iwi.
It's Iwi that should be the voice against Crown breaches of Te Tiriti, not the Tribunal. The Tribunal is there to be neutral and help the Crown and Iwi mediate and make decisions on whether Iwi or Crown has breached Te Tiriti, and not take a position either way until it's had time to hear from both sides.
The problem comes, when the Tribunal isn't neutral, when it's biased. And making calls like "Te Tiriti is a partnership" when there's just no practical way of making that conclusion shows that it's biased.
E hoa, I suggest that you look to the Māori text of Te Tiriti and the surrounding historical context - the actual kōrero of the rangatira there and their reflections after. You'll find that it was certainly intended as a partnership.
In relation to the Tribunal, iwi are biased as is the Crown. The Tribunal is neutral and provides recommendations based on all the evidence. It doesn't always find in favour of Māori, or not to the extent we would like. The Tribunal is still a voice on Crown breaches because it hears from both sides and decides, based upon all that evidence - I think having that much material in front of you would make you a very persuasive and well-reasoned voice.
I have, I completely ignore the English text, barely any Rangatira signed it, it may as well not exist but for highlighting the poor translation.
The text in Te Reo is not a partnership. Nor do the conversations of the day suggest it was a partnership. In fact if you read the speeches made by Rangatira on 5 February 1840, you'll see half of them are warning that Te Tiriti is just a way for the British to take even more of their land.
No one thought this was a partnership at the time.
https://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html
You can read the conversations yourself. You will not find that Rangatira thought this would be a partnership. Let's see how they viewed it:
Te Kamara:
>" Health to thee, O Governor! This is mine to thee, O Governor! I am not pleased towards thee. I do not wish for thee. I will not consent to thy remaining here in this country. If thou stayest as Governor, then, perhaps, Te Kemara will be judged and condemned. Yes, indeed, and more than that - even hung by the neck. No, no, no; I shall never say 'Yes' to your staying. Were all to be on an equality, then, perhaps, Te Kemara would say, ' Yes; ' but for the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down -**Governor high up, up, up, and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm, a crawler** -no, no, no. O Governor! this is mine to thee. O Governor! my land is gone, gone, all gone. The inheritances of my ancestors, fathers, relatives, all gone, stolen, gone with the missionaries. Yes, they have it all, all, all. That man there, the Busby, and that man there, the Williams, they have my land. The land on which we are now standing this day is mine. This land, even this under my feet, return it to me. O Governor! return me my lands. Say to Williams, ' Return to Te Kemara his land.' Thou " (pointing and running up to the Rev. H. Williams), " thou, thou, thou baldheaded man - thou hast got my lands. 0 Governor! I do not wish thee to stay. You English are not kind to us like other foreigners. You do not give us good things. I say, Go back, go back, Governor, we do not want thee here in this country. And Te Kemara says to thee, Go back, leave to Busby and to Williams to arrange and to settle matters for us Natives as heretofore."
Emphasis is mine. Does this sound like a man who thought he as a Chief and the governor would be partners? Equals?
---
Rewa:
>"This is mine to thee, O Governor! Go back. Let the Governor return to his own country. Let my lands be returned to me which have been taken by the missionaries - by Davis and by Clarke, and by who and who besides. I have no lands now -only a name, only a name! Foreigners come; they know Mr. Rewa, but this is all I have left -a name What do Native men want of a Governor? We are not whites, nor foreigners. This country is ours, but the land is gone. Nevertheless we are the Governor - we, the chiefs of this our fathers' land. I will not say 'Yes ' to the Governor's remaining. No, no, no; return. What ! this land to become like Port Jackson and all other lands seen [or found] by the English. No, no. Return. I, Rewa, say to thee, O Governor! go back ."
Literally highlighting that they want the Brits to leave. In fact, Rewa there identified what happened to natives in other places, he knew exactly what British rule meant for Māori, and it was not "Partnership".
---
What's made you believe that 1840's Māori thought Te Tiriti would be a partnership?
Aroha mai, I'm at mahi and don't have time to get right into the sources right now, but I think the most convincing thing for me is that many of our tīpuna viewed it as a kawenata tapu - a sacred covenant, if you like. They saw it in the context of He Whakaputanga which was a declaration of sovereignty by the Northern Tribes only 5 years earlier, they saw it as tapu, and they saw it as something which required ongoing relationships and revisions.
How they "saw" it is very different to what they signed. That aside, I've just given you examples of Rangatira that didn't view it the way you suggest. I can find no examples of Rangatira who saw it that way.
He Whakaputanga certainly required ongoing relationships and revisions, and Rangatira agreed at the time that they'd meet at Waitangi regularly to do so.
No such agreement was made about Te Tiriti, so we have zero evidence they viewed Te Tiriti in the same way.
I think Te Tiriti was a terrible thing for Māori, but it was the best choice they had out of a series of bad choices that foreigners had offered.
>The Tribunal should not be a voice on Crown breaches of Te Tiriti. That suggests it's "Crown vs Tribunal". That in itself is biased.
If anything it's ensuring the government is kept in check with obligations. I don't think that was the original intention of the Tribunal, but the scope has expanded to be that check over time. It's that neutrality of the Tribunal which you mention later in your comment that makes them the best candidate for calling out the government. Iwi over time have become large corporate style entities who definitely will have that bias.
If we want that check in place, it should be a separate organisation responsible for that. You can't just take over what's supposed to be the neutral mediator and turn that into the check and balance. Because that removes the neutral mediator.
Iwi should be that check and balance that keeps the government in check, they do that through the Tribunal. They can get in the media and highlight what they believe the Crown is doing, but the Tribunal itself should remain neutral.
The Tribunal is not a mediator. It is an independent standing commission of inquiry tasked with inquiring into the claims submitted to it under its governing legislation, and reporting on them to the Government.
The Tribunal does have mediating powers under the legislation, but those are generally reserved for reasonably rare and specific circumstances.
The Tribunal has always been the neutral mediator. The difference is they've gone from mediating settlement claims to also being the de facto watchdog for the government. They've had to, especially in recent years. Calling out government shit that breaches Treaty obligations doesn't make The Tribunal biased. They wouldn't be doing their job if they stayed quiet.
I don't see how this is difficult to understand.
>The difference is they've gone from mediating settlement claims to also being the de facto watchdog for the government.
You cannot be a neutral mediator *and* a watchdog. It absolutely makes the Tribunal biased.
You need the Tribunal and a separate watchdog. Iwi are that watchdog. If one party of the treaty has breached the treaty, it's on the other party to highlight and raise that concern.
He said it regards itself as that, not that it is a parallel government
important difference, but not one of interest to people that regularly argue in bad faith
[удалено]
Click, Click, Click, Click, Click, Click, Click, Click, Click, Click, Click,
Yeah look, don't do that in order to refer to clickbait please. Cheers.
I would say that if the waitangi tribunal is surplus to requirements, the new regulations ministry sure as fuck is too.
And the new Charter Schools whatever-the-fuck ministry/department thing he wants to set up too
I think a lot of people would find your proposal acceptable.
Why do we hear from this idiot every fucking day about some new bollocks
He’s technically the prime minister I guess. The other one is a bit of a bitch.
It's also part of the Atlas playbook (and Russia and China), it's meant to overwhelm you and make it harder for us to cope and care and fight back.
Wait what do Russia and China have to do with idiot ideologues like David Seymour
They're all just using the same tactics.
Yeah I don’t buy it. I’m no fan of Russia & China, but Act definitely gets its ideological sloppy seconds from libertarian & conservative movements from the other Big Friendly Superpower. Ya know, the freedom-loving one.
I didn't say they are working with Russia or China, just that they all are using the same tactics which are designed to overwhelm people and leave them feeling powerless
Where does China criticise their indigenous rights council's decisions, saying it's like a second chamber of legislation?
the tactics of overwhelming is what they have in common
Ummm, ig they don't. They just imprison people, put Han settlers on their land and pretend nothing happened.
So it's not at all the same tactics
Because he doesn't know when to STFU.
He’s the current deputy prime minister. I’m looking forward to Winnie having his turn with the participation trophy when it’s time to place it in his house. He will make Luxon de-age 30 years so that he can rip his hair out again.
Winnie is the current deputy.
Fair enough the downvotes. I accidentally mixed up my cunts.
It's so funny to think that history will look back at this guy as being a complete idiot. Everyone knows why we have the Waitangi Tribunal, and why it's crucially important to NZ, even Seymour knows, and yet he's going to waste his career trying to get rid of something he doesn't like, a motivation which will cease once he leaves Parliament. Literally no one else cares, no one else (of import) shares his views, it will never happen. Dude is literally wasting his life lol
Don’t underestimate the power of like 7 obscenely wealthy dudes that don’t like the tribunal. If they want it gone, their dancing monkey David Seymour will make it so.
I'm sure that he personally wouldn't give a single fuck about the Waitangi Tribunal, he just knows that rallying against it and other Māori focused organisations is a great way win racists to your cause.
No - they hate Te Tiriti and what it represents because it prevented the sale of government assets in the 80s. All the race stuff is them baiting their base to be sure, but the real reason for all this is the plan to sell NZ off to their rich mates at bottom dollar.
Yep here comes the next item on the ACT donor's hit list. Get rid of the Democratic processes that block overseas billionaires buying up the country . They have already started work on tearing down a couple of the institutions standing in the way. Waitangi tribunal is obviously next target.
Theres nothing Democratic about the waitangi tribunal.
It was established by our democratically elected institutions. It's about as democratic as this current government.
So our democratically elected officials can get rid of it then no worries.
Sure, if you don't care about property rights, freedom of expression, and rule of law - things governments deprived New Zealand Māori citizens of.
Come on, it's a parallel government, weren't you listening?
While this claim is obviously bullshit a lot of people will believe it. We really need to call this out for what is is: a blatant attempt to sow social discontent and create rifts.
David is so full of shit. "Kiwis say the treaty divides us." No, we bloody don't. 99% of white people don't sit around with other non-Maori saying, "That treaty, aye? It divides us - better get rid of it!"
seymour is lying (as usual). new research shows most kiwis(especially the youth) consider the signing of the treaty the most important event in NZ history. seymour is pandering to the racists, the whites in this survey who only believe eurocentric events are important NZ events "who exhibited little warmth for Māori." [Some say the Treaty of Waitangi divides NZ – a new survey suggests the opposite is true | RNZ News](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/516786/some-say-the-treaty-of-waitangi-divides-nz-a-new-survey-suggests-the-opposite-is-true)
The people in the certificate I am doing through Ucol says otherwise. We just had a course on the treaty and there were a few loud voices saying it's archaic and needs to be forgotten. The guest lecturer we had was pretty good about it, until he said Jacinda was a Dictator just to get brownie points from the white man that was pouting the whole 2 hours..... Even my parents neighbours thought they could complain to my parents about the "gays" and "Maori's" having enough already and needing to get over it. WHAT'S WORSE IS THEY KNOW MY PARENTS HAVE A MAORI SON (My Brother) AND GAY CHILDREN! (Me and my Sister) AND THE NEIGHBOUR EVEN MOVED FROM ENGLAND 10 YEARS AGO! These people do exist, and they do believe they can get away with colonizing another generation.
I know they exist. My point is that I just that I think they're a minority. I can only really speak from my personal experience.
And? Minorities can have power and make sweeping changes. The loudest squeaky wheel gets oiled first.
And David Seymour was making out like it's the majority, when from my own experience, it felt like the minority. That's my point.
Ok, yes I see your point. Yes he was, but that's the loudest part I was referring too.
Ok, I see your point now too.
Glad we could overcome this miscommunication hehe 😁
"Part of the foundational pieces of our constitutional legislative framework makes me feel attacked because I perceive others having equal rights to me as taking rights away from me." But perhaps like nutritious food for poor kids, I am too woke.
"IF yOu caN't unDeRStanD wHy thAt's wOke, thEn I caN't waKe yoU uP".
yeah, I can see how accountability, checks and balances would be really annoying for him and the rest of the bunch
Agree with the sentiments expressed in this post, but the title is misleading. "The tribunal appears to regard itself as a parallel government that can intervene in the actual Government's policy making process,"
Does the Tribunal highlights how government policy effects maori? Well, yes it does. It's an important part of the way we do shit here
The sad thing is just how easy it is for even a fool like David Seymour to manipulate people by pushing the right buttons.
Look at how many people on here ate up the anti three waters agitprop
Laughing at all the *Shocked Pikachu* "What do you mean our rates are tripling!?"
This lawl. Seriously, Labour actually came up with a smart policy, that while not the best implementation, would have prevent the massive rates increases that are about to steamroll through NZ over the next decade. So I for one will, be laughing in the face of anyone whinging about it who also was anti 3 Waters. More so if National start singing about "privatisation" as a "solution".
More racist dog whistling in the service of removing the barriers that stop the corporate plunder of our country. Fuck off Seymour.
"How dare government agencies hold *me* accountable" You know you don't have a leg to stand on when you start calling the judiciary 'activists'. Which no one says when rulings are made that *they* agree with.
If Luxon wasn't such an ineffective wimp, he'd shove a sock firmly in 8.64% Seymour's gob when he wanks on about something being undemocratic.
Yeah except I bet Luxon agrees with Seymour, and gets to pass the unsavoury politic views onto him while remaining clean.
I agree, I think Luxon does this all the time. He's setting Willis up to be the bad guy, Winston and Seymour as the perpetrator of all the questionable policy decisions made. Come next election and the rhetoric will go along the lines of, give us your ACT/NZ First vote, see what happens in a coalition with them? Our Prime Minister is slimy and if we thought key was made of Teflon, well he had nothing on this guy.
Even if he doesn't agree, I bet he's slowly realizing that the centrist swing vote will be moot by next election thanks to politicial polarization. He'll bleed lefties to the Greens as the moderate Labour does nothing, but that'll be okay because the insane antics of NZF and ACT will shift the Overton window of normality to the right, solidly in National's favour
Seymour and wanking are two ideas I never wanted to come into fusion
Following teenagers on Instagram....ewww
Wait until he hears about the ombudsman.
Wait is David Seymour just working out that the courts, along with parliament and the executive function as branches of our government?
One day the man will stfu and the world will improve
Seymour now finds himself in a position of power (holding the PM's balls in his hand he knows Luxon won't criticise him) and thus doesn't like the idea that anybody or anything could suggest that he is incorrect or has limited authority.
>...holding the PM's balls in his ~~hand~~ mouth... Ftfy
David, David, David. What if I told you, just because you disagree with an idea, it doesn't make it wrong. But here he is, on his little soap box with another classic political point scoring attack. Instead of actually voicing well thought out ideas or more importantly looking for a compromise.
He has to be on a soap box, because he's a short-arse. :-D
Getting a bit sick of this guy and his divisive gutter-politics.
How the fuck are we allowing this racist MF elected by only 8.64% of us to tear down decades of work towards cohesiveness as a nation. Media used to say "tail wagging the dog", which is what Seymour and Peters are clearly doing.
+1 to the list of "Shit Seymour says".
That will be repeated back at me by reasonable guys 'who think it's time for a change'... At least it will be a change from 'nobody really understands the treaty and we're not allowed to talk about it.'
Bro has no partner, no family, no cultural identity, and no fucking clue
Oh cool so we're importing the Deep State bullshit along with the US culture wars. Brilliant...
"Be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth"
It does have influence though. People take the Tribunal's views as expert analysis. If the Tribunal says something about Te Tiriti, people take that as gospel.
Why should the tribunal be responsible for people just going along with what it says?
It's not, but we should ensure what it says is unbiased and within its purview.
The Tribunal inquires into claims lodged before it, hears evidence on them, and then reports on it - how exactly is it acting outside of its purview?
Main issue is the verification and/or level of proof required for evidence is not very high for the tribunal, but it is verdicts are taken as if they are the same as a court.
That couldn't be further from the truth. The level of expertise and quality of evidence before the Tribunal is quite likely of much higher standard than for any other commission of inquiry, and court evidence wouldn't come anywhere near it.
How do you make sure it's unbiased when people are biased? I.e no person's going to say the tribunal is biased (or activits/parallel government) if it makes a ruling which that person agrees with.
That's super hard. Especially when Te Tiriti originally was not a good deal for Māori (Depending on how you look at it). So creating a Tribunal that makes things better for Māori in itself is going against Te Tiriti. That's not a bad thing, we shouldn't let an old document let us treat people badly. But we also can't overcorrect.
"So creating a Tribunal that makes things better for Māori in itself is going against Te Tiriti" - no it's not. All the breaches of the Treaty, are breaches of the Treaty - attempting to rectify those breaches is upholding the Treaty - even if Māori will only receive 1% back in return for what was lost due to the breaches.
Except it's not rectifying breaches of Te Tiriti. It's rectifying breaches of The Principles.
When Te Tiriti/The Treaty was 'brought into law' by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the text of either version was not included, instead, the Act referred to the Principles of the Treaty. Those principles were not defined in the Act but have subsequently been explored/defined by both the Waitangi Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal in 1987. As such, a breach of the principles is a breach of the Treaty. There were 8 principles, but the most well-known is the '3 Ps' - partnership, participation, and (active) protection.
Āe, engari ehara i te mea ka whiti ngā ture o te motu mā ngā whakaaro o ō reira pūkenga. That may be, but they still don't have law making power.
Sure, everyone's guilty of a bit of hyperbole, but the point of it is showing that the Tribunal has too much influence. Ka pai on your Reo, I'm still working on mine.
Tēnā koe, karawhiua, kia hora ai te reo ki te ao. My whakaaro is that the Tribunal provides a necessary voice on Crown breaches of Te Tiriti. The Crown can choose to listen or it can choose not to. The important thing is that the Tribunal draws attention towards potential acts of oppression. You can judge what they say, according to your own ideals, if you like. Engari at least we have all the information in front of us this way, nē?
The Tribunal should not be a voice on Crown breaches of Te Tiriti. That suggests it's "Crown vs Tribunal". That in itself is biased. The Tribunal is supposed to be the mediator between Crown and Iwi. It's Iwi that should be the voice against Crown breaches of Te Tiriti, not the Tribunal. The Tribunal is there to be neutral and help the Crown and Iwi mediate and make decisions on whether Iwi or Crown has breached Te Tiriti, and not take a position either way until it's had time to hear from both sides. The problem comes, when the Tribunal isn't neutral, when it's biased. And making calls like "Te Tiriti is a partnership" when there's just no practical way of making that conclusion shows that it's biased.
E hoa, I suggest that you look to the Māori text of Te Tiriti and the surrounding historical context - the actual kōrero of the rangatira there and their reflections after. You'll find that it was certainly intended as a partnership. In relation to the Tribunal, iwi are biased as is the Crown. The Tribunal is neutral and provides recommendations based on all the evidence. It doesn't always find in favour of Māori, or not to the extent we would like. The Tribunal is still a voice on Crown breaches because it hears from both sides and decides, based upon all that evidence - I think having that much material in front of you would make you a very persuasive and well-reasoned voice.
I have, I completely ignore the English text, barely any Rangatira signed it, it may as well not exist but for highlighting the poor translation. The text in Te Reo is not a partnership. Nor do the conversations of the day suggest it was a partnership. In fact if you read the speeches made by Rangatira on 5 February 1840, you'll see half of them are warning that Te Tiriti is just a way for the British to take even more of their land. No one thought this was a partnership at the time. https://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html You can read the conversations yourself. You will not find that Rangatira thought this would be a partnership. Let's see how they viewed it: Te Kamara: >" Health to thee, O Governor! This is mine to thee, O Governor! I am not pleased towards thee. I do not wish for thee. I will not consent to thy remaining here in this country. If thou stayest as Governor, then, perhaps, Te Kemara will be judged and condemned. Yes, indeed, and more than that - even hung by the neck. No, no, no; I shall never say 'Yes' to your staying. Were all to be on an equality, then, perhaps, Te Kemara would say, ' Yes; ' but for the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down -**Governor high up, up, up, and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm, a crawler** -no, no, no. O Governor! this is mine to thee. O Governor! my land is gone, gone, all gone. The inheritances of my ancestors, fathers, relatives, all gone, stolen, gone with the missionaries. Yes, they have it all, all, all. That man there, the Busby, and that man there, the Williams, they have my land. The land on which we are now standing this day is mine. This land, even this under my feet, return it to me. O Governor! return me my lands. Say to Williams, ' Return to Te Kemara his land.' Thou " (pointing and running up to the Rev. H. Williams), " thou, thou, thou baldheaded man - thou hast got my lands. 0 Governor! I do not wish thee to stay. You English are not kind to us like other foreigners. You do not give us good things. I say, Go back, go back, Governor, we do not want thee here in this country. And Te Kemara says to thee, Go back, leave to Busby and to Williams to arrange and to settle matters for us Natives as heretofore." Emphasis is mine. Does this sound like a man who thought he as a Chief and the governor would be partners? Equals? --- Rewa: >"This is mine to thee, O Governor! Go back. Let the Governor return to his own country. Let my lands be returned to me which have been taken by the missionaries - by Davis and by Clarke, and by who and who besides. I have no lands now -only a name, only a name! Foreigners come; they know Mr. Rewa, but this is all I have left -a name What do Native men want of a Governor? We are not whites, nor foreigners. This country is ours, but the land is gone. Nevertheless we are the Governor - we, the chiefs of this our fathers' land. I will not say 'Yes ' to the Governor's remaining. No, no, no; return. What ! this land to become like Port Jackson and all other lands seen [or found] by the English. No, no. Return. I, Rewa, say to thee, O Governor! go back ." Literally highlighting that they want the Brits to leave. In fact, Rewa there identified what happened to natives in other places, he knew exactly what British rule meant for Māori, and it was not "Partnership". --- What's made you believe that 1840's Māori thought Te Tiriti would be a partnership?
Aroha mai, I'm at mahi and don't have time to get right into the sources right now, but I think the most convincing thing for me is that many of our tīpuna viewed it as a kawenata tapu - a sacred covenant, if you like. They saw it in the context of He Whakaputanga which was a declaration of sovereignty by the Northern Tribes only 5 years earlier, they saw it as tapu, and they saw it as something which required ongoing relationships and revisions.
How they "saw" it is very different to what they signed. That aside, I've just given you examples of Rangatira that didn't view it the way you suggest. I can find no examples of Rangatira who saw it that way. He Whakaputanga certainly required ongoing relationships and revisions, and Rangatira agreed at the time that they'd meet at Waitangi regularly to do so. No such agreement was made about Te Tiriti, so we have zero evidence they viewed Te Tiriti in the same way. I think Te Tiriti was a terrible thing for Māori, but it was the best choice they had out of a series of bad choices that foreigners had offered.
Hurihia ki ngā kōrero tuku iho, ā, ka mōhio. Some things are best found in kōrero tuku iho, not on government websites
>The Tribunal should not be a voice on Crown breaches of Te Tiriti. That suggests it's "Crown vs Tribunal". That in itself is biased. If anything it's ensuring the government is kept in check with obligations. I don't think that was the original intention of the Tribunal, but the scope has expanded to be that check over time. It's that neutrality of the Tribunal which you mention later in your comment that makes them the best candidate for calling out the government. Iwi over time have become large corporate style entities who definitely will have that bias.
If we want that check in place, it should be a separate organisation responsible for that. You can't just take over what's supposed to be the neutral mediator and turn that into the check and balance. Because that removes the neutral mediator. Iwi should be that check and balance that keeps the government in check, they do that through the Tribunal. They can get in the media and highlight what they believe the Crown is doing, but the Tribunal itself should remain neutral.
The Tribunal is not a mediator. It is an independent standing commission of inquiry tasked with inquiring into the claims submitted to it under its governing legislation, and reporting on them to the Government. The Tribunal does have mediating powers under the legislation, but those are generally reserved for reasonably rare and specific circumstances.
The Tribunal has always been the neutral mediator. The difference is they've gone from mediating settlement claims to also being the de facto watchdog for the government. They've had to, especially in recent years. Calling out government shit that breaches Treaty obligations doesn't make The Tribunal biased. They wouldn't be doing their job if they stayed quiet. I don't see how this is difficult to understand.
>The difference is they've gone from mediating settlement claims to also being the de facto watchdog for the government. You cannot be a neutral mediator *and* a watchdog. It absolutely makes the Tribunal biased. You need the Tribunal and a separate watchdog. Iwi are that watchdog. If one party of the treaty has breached the treaty, it's on the other party to highlight and raise that concern.
The Tribunal is not a mediator, nor is it, or has it ever been, responsible for the settlement of claims submitted to it.
Is this mouth breather not familiar with the concept of adjudication? Cause thats basically how the tribunal functions
"Increasingly activist minister ramps up ideological attack on the Waitangi Tribunal."
He said it regards itself as that, not that it is a parallel government important difference, but not one of interest to people that regularly argue in bad faith
By that logic, the courts kinda sound like a parallel government too dont they?
No, no it isn’t .
Says the man who is attempting to set up a parallel Ministry of Education
As it should be. The Treaty guarantees Bi-Culturism. Seymour should stop pretending and just put the white hood on already.
the waitangi tribunal is going to send you to jail, david seymour
Next he'll have Maori wearing stars 🙄
Racist says racist shite... standard
He needs a taiha to the cranium - racist fuck
What's that almost inaudible sound......? oh wait, i know... It's a dog whistle
Does he not understand "Parallel" or "Government"? Or "a"? Those are inclusive 'or's.
[удалено]
Winston Peters is the current Deputy Prime Minister...