Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Worried2Death]

The more I listen to everyone the more I think Winston makes the most sense!

That wily old fox is the Maori Trump not Brian Tamaki, Bri's an amateur

 

[Rizzah]

Discussion is always healthy, regardless of understanding of history. The belief that only certain people can discuss the treaty is actually one of the key drivers of this debate.

Seymour says the courts shouldn’t do it, that it’s parliament’s role. People with a deep understanding of the treaty say “your opinion doesn’t hold water” so dont want to discuss it.

Opponents of the bill shouldn’t argue about the process not being inclusive if they actively discourage other members of society from even talking about the subject

The best way for people to educate is to actually thrash things out in a conversation. It’s NZs founding doc. It should be discussed so people can understand the other’s point of view and understand how our society works and sometimes doesnt

My point is, it’s only constructive when it’s an informed discussion. Especially when it's on something as significant as the Treaty.

 

[defensivebomb]

I voted for Luxon but think he’s being a pussy on the matter. I also think the other parties are being closed -minded

I don’t think Luxon should fall into line behind Seymour but I think he should acknowledge there are issues that need to be out in the open and resolved constructively

There is distrust that govt (current and the most recent) is moving this element of our constitution forward

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

My point is, it’s only constructive when it’s an informed discussion. Especially when it's on something as significant as the Treaty.

I remember back in the old days when men of the house wouldn’t discuss things with woman because they wouldn’t understand.

 

[juju]

Discussion is always healthy, regardless of understanding of history. The belief that only certain people can discuss the treaty is actually one of the key drivers of this debate.

Seymour says the courts shouldn’t do it, that it’s parliament’s role. People with a deep understanding of the treaty say “your opinion doesn’t hold water” so dont want to discuss it.

Opponents of the bill shouldn’t argue about the process not being inclusive if they actively discourage other members of society from even talking about the subject

The best way for people to educate is to actually thrash things out in a conversation. It’s NZs founding doc. It should be discussed so people can understand the other’s point of view and understand how our society works and sometimes doesnt

You think David Seymour and The Act Party are the right people to lead that conversation?

You can't grasp their ulterior motive or you actually think they have actually acted in good faith on this bill?

 

[miket12]

I remember back in the old days when men of the house wouldn’t discuss things with woman because they wouldn’t understand.

Yip, men have always been stupid and never understood women

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

I voted for Luxon but think he’s being a pussy on the matter.

As some on here have said if your not Maori you don’t get a say…

Luxons staying out of it. It’s politically toxic for him.

Even Labour kept He Puapua hidden and implemented it out of the public’s eye…

 

[Bay39er]

As some on here have said if your not Maori you don’t get a say…

Luxons staying out of it. It’s politically toxic.

He had an opportunity to show some leadership and put it in the bin long ago but imo has failed the test miserably - 7*8=42 comes to mind!

 

[defensivebomb]

You think David Seymour and The Act Party are the right people to lead that conversation?

Luxon should, but per my earlier comment, he is being a pussy

This is one of those too-hard-basket issues that good leaders are brave enough to address

 

[juju]

He had an opportunity to show some leadership and put it in the bin long ago but imo has failed the test miserably - 7*8=42 comes to mind!

Muldoon met with Whina Coopers Hikoi on the steps of parliament did the first two minutes of his speech were in Te Reo.
Muldoon...

 

[Rizzah]

I remember back in the old days when men of the house wouldn’t discuss things with woman because they wouldn’t understand.

Fair point, maybe my earlier post weren't very good. I’m not saying people can’t have an opinion. It’s about recognising that discussions on our constitutional framework need a baseline understanding. Experts in this space matter and they are being shut out.

 

[Rizzah]

My mind keeps going back to something I read about how the Treaty is often referenced in FTAs to ensure Māori rights aren't overridden by international trade obligations. The "exception clause" acts as a safe guard from exploitative parts of FTAs. I imagine this is a massive hindrance to some multinationals.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Fair point, maybe my earlier post weren't very good. I’m not saying people can’t have an opinion. It’s about recognising that discussions on our constitutional framework need a baseline understanding. Experts in this space matter and they are being shut out.

I think the experts have had a say and it’s the public/ media/ social media disseminating that information which has bypassed Seymour.

I don’t think the historical context or the wording of the treaty or what the experts say is actually that important. I think the treaty has its power in what it mean to everyday Maori as a living document and their willingness to back that with action.

 

[roguei]

My mind keeps going back to something I read about how the Treaty is often referenced in FTAs to ensure Māori rights aren't overridden by international trade obligations. The "exception clause" acts as a safe guard from exploitative parts of FTAs. I imagine this is a massive hindrance to some multinationals.

Damn...

Māori interests

A free trade agreement with the EU will benefit Māori businesses while protecting their rights.

www.mfat.govt.nz

The Treaty of Waitangi Exception in New Zealand’s Free Trade Agreements (Chapter 11) - Indigenous Peoples and International Trade

Indigenous Peoples and International Trade - June 2020

www.cambridge.org

Never read up on it before but 100% will now.

 

[roguei]

Althogh the chapter posted above is from Professor Kawharu to whom i disagree with when it comes to treaty translations. So maybe best to find other sources.

 

[Rizzah]

I think the experts have had a say and it’s the public/ media/ social media disseminating that information which has bypassed Seymour.

I don’t think the historical context or the wording of the treaty or what the experts say is actually that important. I think the treaty has its power in what it mean to everyday Maori as a living document and their willingness to back that with action.

I certainly think Seymour has misunderstood the mood of the country. But I also think he's playing the long game, with a strategy to further sideline National in 2026 over their lack of support for this bill.
I think your completely minimising the power of the Treaty in legal context. Its historical and legal significance is just as important as its meaning to Maori as a living document.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

I think your completely minimising the power of the Treaty in legal context. Its historical and legal significance is just as important as its meaning to Māori as a living document.

What I mean is if Maori weren’t willing to defend it then it would have slid into irrelevance and been legally superseded.

It’s power comes from the people behind it as Seymour is finding out.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Discussion is healthy if you have an solid understanding of the treaty and the history, which sadly most NZers don't have.
Coming into the discussion from a place of ignorance isn't really helpful at all.

Edit: If the water cooler chat is encouraging people to investigate this more and read up on the history then yes, it may have done some good. But if all your getting is info from cherry-picked opinion pieces - I'm not sure that is helpful at all.

No wonder the left cant pick political shifts. The chamber echoes loudly. You label any speech you disgree with an "ism" and then promptly ignore it. There's zero introspection as to why people feel that why.

As for condemning the "racist" comment above, if only some people held that same energy for helping.

The unemployment rates for Māori have increased by more than 4 times the national rate. In figures released yesterday from Statistics New Zealand, unemployment rates for Māori hit a four-year high of 8.2%, up by 1.4%. Similarly, rates for Pacific peoples have surged by 1.5% to reach 7.4%. In comparison, the national unemployment rate has risen by 0.3%, reaching 4.3% in the quarter ending March 2024.

Māori unemployment rate increases by more than four-times national rates

In figures released yesterday from Statistics New Zealand, unemployment rates for Māori hit a four-year high of 8.2%, up by 1.4%

www.nzdoctor.co.nz

 

[Worried2Death]

I remember back in the old days when men of the house wouldn’t discuss things with woman because they wouldn’t understand.

That's right Wiz, you don't hear Afghan women complaining do ya

 

[Bay39er]

An opinion piece by Simon Wilson

Why the Treaty bill breaches Act’s own principles

It’s 21 years since American novelist Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize for Literature and almost 50 years since she told an audience in Portland, Oregon: “The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being.”

That’s what David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill is doing right now and will continue doing for at least the next six months.

How does that bill sit with the Act Party, whose founding principles include respect for contract law, property law and the rule of law in general?

The scope of the Treaty of Waitangi is far grander than its narrow legal status. But as has been noted by more than 40 king’s counsels and former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley, Act’s bill fails on basic legal grounds just as much as it does on harder-to-define cultural and social ones.

The fact is, the Treaty is a contract. It explicitly recognises property rights.

It’s true Māori and Pākehā had different understandings of what “property” meant in 1840. But in relation to Seymour’s bill, that’s neither here nor there. In this contract, the Crown committed to upholding what it understood to be the property rights of Māori.

That is not in dispute.

Now, Act wants the Crown to walk away from its commitment.

If this was a good-faith debate about a problem with the contract, as Act claims, we wouldn’t be going about it like this. The process would start with good-faith dialogue between the descendants of the Treaty signatories. That’s the Crown on one side and iwi and hapu on the other.

If the issue really was how to build a cohesive society by safeguarding the democratic rights of all citizens, as Act claims, the same would apply.

But Act didn’t do that. Instead, it wants one party to the contract – the Crown – to rewrite the deal to suit itself.

In practice, this is what Sir George Grey did. He secured more land for settlers by ignoring the understanding of the Treaty that had prevailed on both sides when it was signed. That caused the wars of the 1860s and eventually led to the long, ongoing process of redress we now know as the work of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Why is the Act Party set on a course that ignores contract law and property rights?

Because it doesn’t really care about property rights? I bet it does.

Or because it doesn’t care about the property rights of iwi and hapū? So much for the “one law for all” principle it pretends to be upholding with its Treaty bill.

Why is it doing this? Because during the six months of select committee hearings, Seymour will be able to tour the country building his party base among everyone who thinks Māori have been allowed to “get away with too much”.
As for Christopher Luxon, how is it that the coalition agreement is an inviolable contract, but the Treaty of Waitangi is not? He’s a fool for getting the country into this mess.

What should he do now? Enable six months of chaos, or pull the plug: honour this commitment, or that one? Either option will cause an uproar.

The best thing is to do the right thing. Over time, it will become the only defensible position and it’s also, plainly, in the best interests of the country. There’s a principle to stand solid on.

Meanwhile, the distraction of racism. There’s so much work to do, in economic development, healthcare, housing, education, workers’ rights, the environment, welfare support, making the culture bloom, building the community that can sustain it all. So many people are hard at work doing all that. And this distraction undermines it all.

Which, as Toni Morrison said, is the point.