I am really enjoying this series of korero with pakeha like Max and Heather. Matthew Hooton and Chris Finlaysons views on te tiriti and the proposed bill was even better. Thank you Moana and team for your mahi in this space.
The labour govt added the principles to the treaty in the 80's. The original treaty had 3 points that all are equal under NZ law. That's what Seymours saying.
@@jobird354 No, that's not quite correct. The phrase 'the principles of the Treaty' originated in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act. It's the standard against which the Waitangi Tribunal assesses claims. There was a Government report in 1988 with the title 'The principles of the Treaty'. See www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi#Principles_of_the_Treaty_of_Waitangi You're welcome and have a nice day!😀
@@Digmen1 Buckingham Palace has said that it does not hold sovereignty over NZ, but Maori do. Since they would be fully aware of what it means, they are in the right.
Co-governance is in the treaty. Brits replaced rangatiratanga (run by local chiefs) into sovereignty (run by UK royals). The treaty house was set on fire but the treaty document still exists showing the details along with its burnt frayed edges. We've tried the colonial system for a hell of a long time and now is the time to give the actual documented deal a fair go.
@@Digmen1 Really, that's why there has been a dispute over it since it was written in two languages. My tipuna was the sixth signatory so I have a vested family interest.
The maori chiefs ceded sovereignty at Waitangi and around the rest of the country. And then they confirmed it at Kohimarara in 1860. They were very pleased with the British law.
Sure, he can stand for those things "for all." That's not reality, though. Our founding document is our founding document. You don't change it. We can reach equality, if so desired, through the court of law, not by revising our history.
I 100% agree with those saying we should not change the original treaty document. However, the principles were added in 1989 without consulting the general public, therefore they are not a part of the original document. The aim is to change these principles to apply to all new Zealanders, making everyone equal under the treaty instead of treating some Kiwis with a different set of rights due to their race.
NO, the principles were NOT added in 1989 without consulting the general public. Here is some information about 'the principles of the Treaty'. www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi#Principles_of_the_Treaty_of_Waitangi You're welcome and have a nice day!😀
We have these Maori groups that are feircly supporting this Govt and saying we have got your back Reti on this smoking repeal? we have these Maori groups that support Luxon & are getting in on the deals offered by them to capture that support against Maori who are fighting for our right for now and the future for the country and all the people. How can we be united when the Govt have this support from these Maori communities?
I'm a "rightie" and think the treaty principles bill is stupid. It's dividing people and fuelling a fire of anguish between people non-Maori and even within Maori, I don't see a problem with wanting people to be equal and fundamentally agree but I don't feel the Treaty necessarily has principles attached to it. I'm a proud Libertarian who was an ACT voter but not happy with them presently,
I don't agree with ACTs proposed Principles bill. Because it just causes more confusion about the treaty. It had a preamble and 3 articles and a summary. There were no principles as the elite maori iwi are trying to claim. But I am for a big debate, and removing it as our founding document, as it was written long before modern government.
@@Digmen1 I agree that any more convolution around the Treaty is unhelpful. Personally, I think it's a symbolic significance more than legislative, it wasn't designed nor intended to be an eternal guide to political decision making. NZ is one of few countries that has no actual constitution and creating one now would be advantageous but complicated.
No it's not. Yes, Maori were given 'a different set of rights' in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 because 'we' the voters acting through our democratic Parliament agreed that Maori were unjustly treated on land confiscations over generations by successive governments. So Parliament set up the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry to look at claims by Maori that government actions were 'inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi'.
@@theecanmole it wasn't "we" who interpreted the TOW to mean different races get different rights, it was a bunch of bureaucrats. A referendum on what the principles of the treaty of waitangi are would decide what "we" would like to see happen.
@@mrFizzboat There has simply been no malfeasance by a bunch of bureaucrats. That is simply wrong. There has been no 'reinterpretation' that resulted in different races getting different rights. The different rights are explicit in the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975. In section 6 it gives "any Maori" the right to make a claim. The Waitangi Tribunal "shall have exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the 2 texts and to decide issues raised by the differences between them" ( Section 5(2)). Then the tribunal has to decide if the "act..was or is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty" (Section 6(1)). So the Tribunal has always had to consider what 'the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi' in each specific case. That's just business as usual for the Tribunal. And it has worked as the Tribunal's reports have been the basis for the more than 60 successful historic treaty settlements that have been made by the Government.
@@theecanmole Just because the Treaty of Waitangi ACT says so, does not mean that its right, or that it cannot be changed. How come Europeans cannot make claims to the Tribual? How come noone can give opposing evidence to the Tribunal? Its really like a Kangaroo court
@@Digmen1 How come Europeans cannot make claims to the Tribunal? Because no Europeans were unjustly treated on land confiscations over generations by successive governments. It is all about providing justice for deeply-felt grievances. To me that is fair and right.😀
I am really enjoying this series of korero with pakeha like Max and Heather. Matthew Hooton and Chris Finlaysons views on te tiriti and the proposed bill was even better. Thank you Moana and team for your mahi in this space.
Maori did cede soverignty, that is why they signed the treaty.
The Maori chiefs confirmed this at the Kohimarara conference 20 years later.
The labour govt added the principles to the treaty in the 80's. The original treaty had 3 points that all are equal under NZ law. That's what Seymours saying.
@@jobird354 No, that's not quite correct. The phrase 'the principles of the Treaty' originated in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act. It's the standard against which the Waitangi Tribunal assesses claims. There was a Government report in 1988 with the title 'The principles of the Treaty'. See www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi#Principles_of_the_Treaty_of_Waitangi You're welcome and have a nice day!😀
No they didnt 😂😂 ffs
@@Matikemai2040 I can give you ten facts as to why they ceded sovereignty.
Just saying no they didn't is a modern take on things
@@Digmen1 Buckingham Palace has said that it does not hold sovereignty over NZ, but Maori do. Since they would be fully aware of what it means, they are in the right.
Co-governance is in the treaty. Brits replaced rangatiratanga (run by local chiefs) into sovereignty (run by UK royals). The treaty house was set on fire but the treaty document still exists showing the details along with its burnt frayed edges. We've tried the colonial system for a hell of a long time and now is the time to give the actual documented deal a fair go.
Where does it say Co Governance in the treaty or partnership?
@@Digmen1 Rangatiratanga
@@djpomare Really?
@@Digmen1 Really, that's why there has been a dispute over it since it was written in two languages.
My tipuna was the sixth signatory so I have a vested family interest.
The maori chiefs ceded sovereignty at Waitangi and around the rest of the country. And then they confirmed it at Kohimarara in 1860. They were very pleased with the British law.
Sure, he can stand for those things "for all."
That's not reality, though. Our founding document is our founding document. You don't change it. We can reach equality, if so desired, through the court of law, not by revising our history.
I 100% agree with those saying we should not change the original treaty document. However, the principles were added in 1989 without consulting the general public, therefore they are not a part of the original document. The aim is to change these principles to apply to all new Zealanders, making everyone equal under the treaty instead of treating some Kiwis with a different set of rights due to their race.
NO, the principles were NOT added in 1989 without consulting the general public. Here is some information about 'the principles of the Treaty'. www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi#Principles_of_the_Treaty_of_Waitangi You're welcome and have a nice day!😀
The treaty needs to go.
We have these Maori groups that are feircly supporting this Govt and saying we have got your back Reti on this smoking repeal? we have these Maori groups that support Luxon & are getting in on the deals offered by them to capture that support against Maori who are fighting for our right for now and the future for the country and all the people. How can we be united when the Govt have this support from these Maori communities?
He forgets to mention the maori party only got about 2% so it is even less relevant than the Act party.
On the General Roll, it did. The Maori Roll was far greater than that.
The main fact here is democracy does serve the indigenous people when they are outnumbered. Maori don't have any say in thier own country
@@djhemirukahemisphere8893 Correct. Which is why this mess is ongoing.
Heather - have you actually read the Maori text and Busbys draft?
Have you? The english treaty is a scam, was not presented at Waitangi, was not discussed or debated.
I'm a "rightie" and think the treaty principles bill is stupid. It's dividing people and fuelling a fire of anguish between people non-Maori and even within Maori, I don't see a problem with wanting people to be equal and fundamentally agree but I don't feel the Treaty necessarily has principles attached to it. I'm a proud Libertarian who was an ACT voter but not happy with them presently,
So what is your answer to the debate?
@@Digmen1 re: Principles?
I don't agree with ACTs proposed Principles bill.
Because it just causes more confusion about the treaty. It had a preamble and 3 articles and a summary. There were no principles as the elite maori iwi are trying to claim.
But I am for a big debate, and removing it as our founding document, as it was written long before modern government.
@@Digmen1 I agree that any more convolution around the Treaty is unhelpful. Personally, I think it's a symbolic significance more than legislative, it wasn't designed nor intended to be an eternal guide to political decision making. NZ is one of few countries that has no actual constitution and creating one now would be advantageous but complicated.
"democracy becomes structural racism" - divisionist, racist ideology. Not to mention patronising to Maori.
Seymore likes racebaiting its his political lifeline same as Winnie da pooh 😅
The notion some kiwis should have a different set of rights just because of their race is abhorrent.
No it's not. Yes, Maori were given 'a different set of rights' in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 because 'we' the voters acting through our democratic Parliament agreed that Maori were unjustly treated on land confiscations over generations by successive governments. So Parliament set up the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry to look at claims by Maori that government actions were 'inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi'.
@@theecanmole it wasn't "we" who interpreted the TOW to mean different races get different rights, it was a bunch of bureaucrats. A referendum on what the principles of the treaty of waitangi are would decide what "we" would like to see happen.
@@mrFizzboat There has simply been no malfeasance by a bunch of bureaucrats. That is simply wrong. There has been no 'reinterpretation' that resulted in different races getting different rights. The different rights are explicit in the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975. In section 6 it gives "any Maori" the right to make a claim. The Waitangi Tribunal "shall have exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the 2 texts and to decide issues raised by the differences between them" ( Section 5(2)). Then the tribunal has to decide if the "act..was or is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty" (Section 6(1)). So the Tribunal has always had to consider what 'the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi' in each specific case. That's just business as usual for the Tribunal. And it has worked as the Tribunal's reports have been the basis for the more than 60 successful historic treaty settlements that have been made by the Government.
@@theecanmole Just because the Treaty of Waitangi ACT says so, does not mean that its right, or that it cannot be changed.
How come Europeans cannot make claims to the Tribual?
How come noone can give opposing evidence to the Tribunal?
Its really like a Kangaroo court
@@Digmen1 How come Europeans cannot make claims to the Tribunal? Because no Europeans were unjustly treated on land confiscations over generations by successive governments. It is all about providing justice for deeply-felt grievances. To me that is fair and right.😀
So you are close minded. So you are the wrong person for the job.