Gary Judd: Where Are the Treaty Principles Written Down?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Sean Plunket talks to Gary Judd KC: Where are the Treaty principles written down?
Watch the full video at theplatform.kiwi/
Support The Platform & become a RUclips VIP! - / @theplatformnz
Join Platform Plus for enhanced access and features: theplatform.ki...
Download The Platform app for free:
App Store: apps.apple.com...
Google Play: play.google.co...
Call 0800 DEBATE or text us at 5050 (Standard SMS text charges will apply)
Listen to The Platform's straight-talking, free-thinking hosts every weekday.
Sean Plunket: 7am - 10am
Michael Laws: 10am - 1pm
Martin Devlin: 1pm - 4pm
Leah Panapa: 4pm - 6pm
#ThePlatformNZ
The Treaty of Waitangi has become a nice little earner for people once they get their snouts in the tax-payer trough. It is called the grievance industry. End of story.
yep your pretty much grieving about giving back what was taken from maori
@deantairi8357 yep, if Roy "took something" from you, take him to court. Otherwise, we are all just people, working hard to pay taxes for the benefit of all, based on their needs and not what race they identify as.
@@olsaffa7679 thats part of the reason why the waitangi tribunal was established courts will cost taxpayers more money like you said all of our taxes are footing the bill maori are paying to get back what was confiscated from our maori ancestors
This is why Lawyers are predominantly left leaning. They're non-productive, gatekeepers who exist either as a tax in they public system or in the private sector. You'll find that predominantly in industries where value is interfered with, not created. They don't enable, they gate-keep and insert themselves as "value add" services. Tell me, where is the value added?
@deantairi8357 confiscated by who? Take a walk down Queen Street and you'll quickly realize that the majority of people came here post 1940, forget about 1840. Go have a walk in Gisborne or Kaitaia and you'll notice very few people who'd claim 50% Maori ancestry, forget about 100%. Can you now claim "reparations" from immigrants when Maori should claim reparations from part of their own immigrant whakapapa? And how did the majority of NZers, arriving post 1940's, come to owe part Maori today? Go take individuals who you can prove benefitted to the court, which Maori subjected themselves to when they became full crown citizens. The only thing the Waitangi Tribunal should be dealing with is land expropriated without compensation. Once those are settled, no more grievances. The "Maori economy" makes up 27% of GDP while 17% of the population. If you need reparations, you should ask where all that money is going first.
We DONT legitimately have any principles. The only reason we appear to have these things is that people have talked them into existence...... starting with the Waitangi Tribunal
And, of course, our politicians - who have made a complete disaster of it starting with the likes of Palmer & Rata, added to along the way with the likes of that low-life, Findlayson, who deserves special mention.
@@Fred-zw9kk Oh it goes back further than that, way past the mighty Totara Bolger, we have them all to thank for this mess. They all need to be held to account IMO.
@@paulmeersa7162 they never will be. We just need to accept the Treaty exactly as it was when it was signed by both parties and work on that and that alone from now on. It is NOT a partnership, The Crown has sovereignty.
@@jillspence7227Or, we just throw principles and treaty away, and move forward together.
But it appears too many revel in their victimhood.
We are immigrants to NZ. Anti immigrants can Fire at will, I’ve heard it all. Because of all this constant battering of Māori, non Māori, politics by colour, and lack of ability to take the country forward because it’s still fighting about the past, we’re off. Leaving NZ and closing it as a bad chapter in our lives. NZ is falling apart and living in the past seems to have greater priority than moving into the future. NZ is being left standing on the world stage. We was proud to say we had moved to NZ, but not anymore. I hope NZ can sort its sh1t out before it ruins itself.
Well said, sorry to see you go although I appreciate what you're saying 😊 enjoy your new chapter in life 😁
This is what happens when someone steals someone elses land. Truth be told!
@@dgm2593 What a Clown
Bugger off then. Good luck out there though, as the whole world is in freefall, economically, socially, culturally. Lay the blame where it belongs, on crap global leadership, not the people who bear the pain of it.
@@dgm2593 What land was stolen and when exactly...?
Another great reason to end the Waitangi tribunal grift!!
exactly.
Good luck with that
Principles my ASS. The treaty was 3 Articles.. YES get over it
I would think that it is in both party's interests to have more clarity around the standing of the so-called principles and I believe that is what David Seymour is driving at. Those who speculate that having this debate is somehow going to increase racial tensions are simply aiming to shut down the debate, without considering the mutual benefits of having one.
Seymour is dangerous and lacks the articulated subtlety to calm both sides. He starts wars with his pitting side against side.
There are principles. The issue is that people like David Seymour don’t want to recognize that.
There is no debate to have. The Treaty is clear. Maori ceded sovereign
@@jillspence7227 where does it say they ceded sovereignty
@@jillspence7227 watch out for the flying elephants
And there lies the question we, critical thinking people, have been asking for sometime. We know this has been a shit show of un addressed largesse, for a self selected few. Shame.
Winston says that their are no principals in the treaty,he is correct but yet for the past 30 years we have had principals in the treaty and Winston has been part of successive Governments and yet the principals remain not a squeak from Winston until David brought in his treaty Principals bill FFS
Should have live debate on tv
The problem is no-one can have the truthful view because it isn't open to interpretation cos it did the job for 12 years until Parliament formed period
So basically, Winston is trying to avoid the issue…
So NZF supports the status quo…🤔
No he rightly observes they aren't real rules.....however if they are being enforced, and they are being enforced, it needs to be shut down actively. Ignoring it is therefore not an option.
Actively shut down…which they are not…so he’s ignoring it…end of…simply saying they don’t exist is an easy way of doing nothing…
the document's text, signatures, and date are what matter, not the unwritten principles or understandings that have evolved over time. The signed document is the primary source of its legal authority and obligations.
Absolutely correct . I am not an authority but I am pretty sure that the chiefs who did sign in 1940 wanted peace and the protection of the Crown . If this is incorrect please advance your argument in the comments .
@@andrewcampbell2903 1940🤷
What was signed in 1940 again?@@andrewcampbell2903
not signed on the day, not part of the Treaty of Waitangi. Otherwise every contract in our country since can be rewritten at any stage, that is the precedent that would set.
always get something to think about from Mr Judd KC, hope he continues to come on the show
How come NZF gets all of the ‘edgy’ anti-establishment support…yet they are allowed to be soft on this issue and not support the referendum?🤔
Because they are right in that there are no principles and adding them now will only further the grift!! Wake TF up man!!!!
Wake up?? NZ first was in govt when He Puapua was tabled…they also let labour in in 2017…you wake up 😂
@@austingtiryou sound old. Winny is a cope out on this issue.
@@mra4955 Winnie said:
"No deal 🙅 mfkrs"
😉
Because there are no principles in the Treaty, so the bill for a referendum is moot. The Crown has sovereignty.
The activists are conning us that the treaty of Waitangi is like the dead sea scrolls with missing writings discovered.
@Coach-j1hThe separatism.
Untill this is sorted once and for all this country will never move forward
The maori Grifters will KEEP the gravy train as LONG as they can.
@@Wairoa4ever Ohhh sorry about it disappointed coalition supporter oh sorry act party grifter
@@andrewmann3787 only thing to sort out is your selflessness act supporter
Well it will move forward but it will be a big cluster shambles.
Time waits for no one so in actual fact were always moving forward 😂
The treaty principles are whatever the Maori intelligentsia say they are at any time.
And there is the problem.
Bull Dust. 😂.
No partnership. Just British law or nothing. Turns out the worst thing done was offering this now it’s just eternal UTU and plunder.
The Waitangi Tribunal has had many remarkable thoughts about NZ over time, but none of these are binding or have any more legitimacy than others' views. Let parliament give the guidance we need on how to interpret the treaty and stop the ad-hoc wish list approach that maori have adopted.
So they made there own rules up
Always have done. Make up what you like.
Sadly, Winston is doing a Winston, like many duplicitous politicians. If the ‘principles of the Treaty’ are to be removed from legislation as he implies, how much legislation do you think that will really affect? By way of example, the “Fast-Track Approvals Bill” (which need I mention is a coalition initiative and has nothing directly to do with Treaty Settlements), mentions "Treaty" 85 times, “principles” 11 times, “Tikanga” 3 and “Matauranga” once. So, I’ll wager the ‘principles of the Treaty’ will continue to prevail and with them the claims of a 'partnership', co-governance, Maori sovereignty etc. etc. will continue to fester, while the country continues to decline. We absolutely need Seymour’s proposed discussion, and for democracy to prevail, if there's to be any any chance of NZ uniting and prospering. Either that, or it's goodnight, nurse!
Goooooood morning Vietnam!
Even if ACTs bill just started discussion on the robbery perpetrated on tax payers.
The Crown itself is to blame for that imo...the Crown were who committed the injustices to Maori, but somehow the Crown makes YOU and ME foot the reparations bill...
Crown causes the bs, but it's us that pays for it?
Where's the fairness in that?
@@Rodtang-x5z especaly as I'm part maori
@@Rodtang-x5z How do you expect the "crown" to pay without it being us?
Their money is from us after all.
@@marksvideochannel3592 Exactly...that's been a known fact for many years, yet they still take the money from us to pay the reparations...my point is, the law is bent. If you commit a crime, you are expected to pay for that crime.
If the Crown commits a crime, we pay for it? Neat little system they've designed for themselves huh??
In the context of post colonial New Zealand, the Goverment, also known as the Crown, is part of the Commonwealth and is represented here by the Govenor General King Charles III is also King of New Zealand and the Commonwealth once known as the "British" Commonwealth and earlier still, the British Empire.. In breaking with a long held tradition, then Commonwealth country Barbados, removed the reigning Monarch QE2, as their head of state. They had their reasons no doubt and if other Country's within The Commonwealth begin to have similar ambitions, then they too may well jack it in and free themselves from their historic links to the Commonwealth. The strength of these were tested when the British joined the European Economic Union but after they Brexited from the EU they've rejoined the Commonwealth and, "she's all hunky dory" again.
The 'principles' have been interpreted in a way that creates two standards of citizenship based on ancestry..- that's what the treaty principles bill is intended to correct and despite Luxon's cowardice, this issue will only fester..
BINGO!!!!!!!!
The Treaty is actually a very simple document whose meaning has been abused for gain.
Dont you mean Te Tiriti? Because as stated in this interview, it was the signed document. Abuse for gain is only in the English version bud.
@@dobbynp You're right, it is a simple document and yet the Crown couldn't keep the terms of the document for 180 years 😂 shame on them 😂
@@warriorsfan1602 more like the treaty is being used to justify lining the pockets of greedy spokespeople and others who want preferential treatment and now they are crying that the gravy train will end. Weak people who are not good enough to succeed on their own.
@@kylebeckett825 no I don't. And please....define the principles.
@@kylebeckett825 And the principles are ? waiting waiting waiting, not wanting feelings or it might be , but the Principals
So seven principles were contrived under the Dept of Maori Affairs in 1971 . They are not contained in the 1840 Maori version and were not explicit at all until the meddling that occurred 131 years later . If what I have written here is incorrect then it can be refuted but if it is simply deleted where is the desire for the truth to be known ?
@@andrewcampbell2903 The principles come from the fact that the Crown broke the terms of their own treaty for 180 years. Compensation through settlements was seen as one way of going forward the others was through treaty principles.
@@warriorsfan1602 OK , so you are not arguing that the principles are contained within the 1840 document . We need to make a distinction between the treaty itself and something that came along more than a century later .
@@warriorsfan1602 Rubbish; the Crown has never broken the Treaty. Ever!
@@warriorsfan1602 And please highlight where and how they were broken, or is it just feelings you have about the govt
Why is the treaty of Waitangi commission entitled to create principles for the treaty which were not created when the treaty was signed? Surely that is not a part of our democratic process? In which case why can’t any Iwi create principles to suit their individual agenda?
similar things seem to happen in other departments too. The police have created "none crime incidents" which they record. The IRD can decide you could be earning more and charge you based on that instead of your earnings because "capacity to earn" they define as what they feel you could earn. The education department just makes up anything they like, parents and truth be damned, so do mental health professionals science be damned.
This is what the USA call the "deep state", people that are part of government, aren't elected yet have lots of power they abuse without anyone able to vote them out or hold them accountable.
Like the police commissioner not being able to be fired by the police minister we elect for example....so how do the citizen hold the commissioner accountable?
Public vote problem solved it's called Democracy...?
1881, Democracy was broken... Your argument is invalid when Early Settlers broke it 🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽
YES BRING IT. Obama is back
Not gonna happen start emptying your tears now😂
Yeah no one wants a vote when ya no you'll never win
Removing the so called "Principles" from all Treaty enquiries only means that I wonder for how long Winston Peters has held this view for ?....
Ask Aunty Dame Ann Selmon TO COME ON YOUR SHOW about your cede & The principal's,Reality is you weren't there noone but the Rangatera & monarch (WHICH WAS PAST DOWN ) & spoke about give & take,There was no hand written principal's THAT'S A PAKEA THING WHICH (WE AINT) MADE IT EASIER FOR YOU DIFFRENT CULTURED WHITE PEOPLE IN GOVERNESS TO IGNORE IT & TWIST IT TO FIT YOUR NARRATIVE'S
Its dead in the water
The Court of Appeal
The inclusion of the principles in the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 led to a Court of Appeal case New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General (1987) (a.k.a. the ‘Lands’ case or the ‘SOE’ case). It forced the Court to define the treaty principles. The judgements do not codified their principles, but a common summary and useful for govt departments who struggle with the meaning of a legal document
Wow what a clever scam , introducing principles.
Sean: the last thing we need is a division between Act and NZ first squabbling over technicalities, when the critical issue is that a united front is needed to challenge the common contrary concept of partnership. "A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand " and if we dont make a united challenge to the greater division, our national "kingdom"will be divided.
If one subset of the collective franchise has a special relationship with the body elected to represent us, where does that leave the rest of us? If tangata tiriti are shut out of the Tribunal, where do non maori have a voice in the debate? Are the rest of us as a majority subset, not the silent majority, but the silenced majority?
The critical issue at stake is our fundamental ignorance of our founding history, which leaves us open to political manipulation and reactionary misinformation. The focus of the Tribunal is hearing Maori claims, and as with any bunch of lawyers, the goal is not justice but the best deal for the client, and so it was with the Tribunal Report that concluded that Maori did not cede sovereignty. In an open court system this decision could be appealed, but none of us outside that system have a right of appeal
We urgently need an open and objective forum in which these issues can be raised, but all we get at present is a war of ideologies spiced with accusations and slurs
To the Coalition, please, paddle the waka in the same direction, hitch your horses in one harness and at least get the stagecoach of NZ to the first base of a select committee hearing. That is the place- or at least theonly place at present-where all of these issues can potentially be objectively addressed by all citizens.
Our foundation needs to be the rock of historical fact, not the shifting sands of political ideologies and revolutionary agendas.
This is crazy so you’re telling me that unelected people have created something out of nothing and now we having to pay for all this nonsense? How is this okay or able to happen?
Treaty Articles not fake principles made up by activists since 1970s.
there is so much scholarly work done on the treaty. These guys are pretending that its all vague and confusing. The amount of times they say 'I dont know' and 'this is new to me' shows how unprepared and ignorant they are.
Resoprocity is the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organization to another.
The principals 1975 have nothing to do with 1840 '
Yes correct.....it was an attempt at a rewrite to appease one group.....nothing more and I would add.....illegal....
Funny how it’s old as people driving this narrative. Probably can’t operate a simple google search 😂😂😂😂😂
The Problem is the young have been taught a load of lies through a education system & government / other institutions that has always tried to appease Maori in pursuit of mutual respect and understanding. Some Maori have sort to advance their own embeded agendas. It is time to call it as it is. Maori are not some harmonic race that in the south seas rather ruthless savages have no respect for anyone including other Maori and earlier occupiers of these lands.
Try Washington DC, there's a copy of both draft versions 3 and 4, that's my understanding,
Same old shit got to get the ratings up
The principles are the articles... not some set of nebulous meanings hiding behind the articles that only the initiated are supposed to decipher. Winston is right, we need to get back to the meaning of the historical treaty, and to get away from a treaty-centric politics.
No, we need to decide what New Zealand is going to look like moving forward into the 21st century. Not forever looking backward at 1840.
@@JohnSmith-ux3tt That would be to get away from a treaty-centric politics. History moved on, and so should we.
Would it somehow be possible to ask the British Crown if it considers that the Treaty was a partnership.
Why? It is clear that it is not.
@@paulmeersa7162
It's clear to me, clear to Sir Apirana Ngata, clear to Sir Hugh Kawharu, even clear to lackluster Luxon but still there are some to whom it is not clear. Maybe a definitive answer from the other party in this Treaty might just convince them.
The main problem is that we don't have a constitution to set this stuff down in text, and a review function. So our bits and pieces of cobbled together government, courts, commissions, tribunals, all end up in a legal and linguistic melee.
However, what Parliament screweth up, Parliament must fixeth. Bad drafting in 1975 is a problem. Tolerating 50 years of constitutional uncertainty on minor matters like political power, property, and rights before the law is a frkng travesty.
Blah blah blah 😂😂😂
Ignore gvt ignore media and news get as far as saying Kia ora that’s about it as doesn’t affect my realities of bills budget and goals
It's 2024 can we not just be 1 new zealand and not divided by money and greed from some !! The Maori had nothing before the European/British arrived they did not own the land etc they didn't have roads or airports or farms now they want money for it all and separate heath care etc. They have done very well in the past 100 years.
Totally incorrect to say the Maori had nothing before the European arrive, and "they did not own the land". Ownership itself is a european construct so it almost makes no sense to say they did not own the land. That doesn't mean that the land was not used by Maori or important to them - you could say the land was in many ways more important to Maori than mere ownership. This is why having land stolen and obtained in dubious ways was such a problem, and one people seem to conveniently forget about.
You were there were you, or are you guessing? Today so many pakeha children have massive inheritances from pakeha having access to purchase land or housing etc...A few years ago, the Bank on the phone said, great deposit, salary looks good, come in no problem. I went to the Bank, the guy came out abd said, not even in his office, sorry we can't help you. Must of been my different colour nail polish. I fought every Bank, and finally had the right colour nail polish on 90% deposit. I found errors in my bank statements, next thing I get the small mortgage. Walk in the shoes, don't guess the shoe size.
The Maori had land, their language, dignity, alot more Māori because the British came and killed alot of them!!Don't even say Māori had nothing before the British came, our ancestors were here for 500 years before the British came!
@fun---- what bullshit , you must be in the with the tea party radicals.
@CatherineAugust at least the poms stopped the moari wars, didn't they?
Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag. The precedent has been set, and former governments are to blame. The continuous litigation and grievance industry means that this issue will never be resolved. It will continue to be a political football that's dredged up and used for political convenience. Who here remembers when treaty settlements were supposed to be final?
When you create an organization like The Waitangi Tribunal, there can never be resolution. If there was, they'd have no justification to exist. You get that with all leftist institutes. They'll never solve the problem the claim to be fighting (whether it be poverty, climate or any other moral issue of the day), else they'd have no where to go. And they have nowhere to go because they create no value, they have no skill, they're a parasitic non-productive tax on everyone else. They sit their enviously inserting themselves in to the value-creation hierarchy like trolls under the bridge expecting to be paid generously for transactions. They're a mafia first and foremost, masquerading behind a thin veil of empty platitudes, 'liberal niceness' and moral virtue signaling.
Well said
So new zealand diffrent cultured white people are trying to rewrite MEANING IS WE SHARE AS WE GO ON THIS JOURNEY AS 1 PEOPLE & AS WE GO ON THIS JOURNEY LAND'S FOR EQYALITY OF LIFE EQUAL RIGHT'S WITH KNOWLEDGE
Again WINSTON talks out of BOTH sides of HIS MOUTH saying there are NO PRINCILES of the TREATY & then say's HE WILL KEEP SOME in law / legisltion. Same old Winston double talk, eg vote for me & NZ 1st " WON'T go with National & he DID.
Treaty principles set in stone, do your due diligence fools, 1975 act, 3ps protection, participation, partnership, this ensures maori opportunities to provide input, protect rangatiratanga.
It's debatable whether we should be taking much notice of the Treaty anyway. It shouldn't be debatable whether any "principles", which have been created out of nothing, should apply.
If there should be any principles they should be quotes from the Treaty Chiefs who are being ignored here!
Haha we are equal partners. You 40%, me 60%. Either way the concept of partnership is a misguided convenience.
Why do people want to re-write nzs founding document?
And why do people who want it changed think it will make things more equal?
Are there examples or statistics that back these soundbytes?
Sovereignty of any nation should ultimately belong to all of the citizens of that nation who are currently alive.
The treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of this country hands off he whakaputanga no moving the goal post
I think we have now got to a point where the Treaty causes more confusion, disagreement and distrust than bringing us together as a nation. Once upon a time I had faith in the Waitangi Tribunal process addressing historical grievances. Now i think it has become a self-generating grievance industry that has lost credibility and needs to be disbanded.
The Māoris signed up to get in line to sample the cake and decided they like the icing but not the rest . However rather than be all out they keep coming back for further helpings of the icing . The Maori culture is quite frankly boring and nothing to do with me so stop ramming it down my throat because I’m regurgitating it faster than ever .
And the Waitangi Tribunal had announced that the principles are not set in stone but will change according to circumstances and need.
This must be dumped if not it's going to cost the end of nz
The treaty was with people from the UK.
We were born here.
No different than Maori
We are all under the same treaty.
Us New Zealanders have a King in the UK.
Whoopdee doo.
So what?
Other than that what has the treaty got to do with anything now?
te tiriti was an agreement between the crown and tangata-whenua and the goons in par-liar ment know this otherwise would have abolished it years ago
@@jimijamesjowitt WRONG, the treaty opened the door for non maori to come here and be governed by the Crown through the establishment of a government. At the time alot of the non Maori who were here came under the governance of tribal rule, the church and a small presence of the Crown mainly from Australia Your ignorance is why the treaty should be taught in schools champ lol 😂
@@warriorsfan1602 people would have come here any way. the treaty just made it easier. I would also suggest that had another nation colonized wothout a treaty it probably would have been a lot worse for all.
@@ryanking8960 WRONG, The establishment of a Crown initiated government opened the doors to mass immigration from the UK. Mostly poor people escaping poverty. Without that security immigration would have been slower, which would have been better and not resulted in the Crown taking Maori land illegally due to excessive immigration. As for other countries seeking power through colonisation. The Germans were in Samoa, and although not perfect, their footprint is alot smaller and impactful as the Crowns impact in Aotearoa
Yes! I was born in NZ. Not England. Well said 👏
Do not forget Dame Whina Cooper.
Waitangi Tribunal should be removed
Dead Duck in the WATER😅
Oh My goodness.... And I really don't mean to say.... But.... Once again the Pakeha pleading the "totally ignorant" card and I really don't know what it all means ????.... And only King Charles lll to turn to for proper "Interpretation" ?.... Of which could take until He dies to get any real meaning from.... And oh.... The plight of the poor goes on....
Cry me a river!
the Pakeha, i do find that word offensive
Jesus Christ....still on about this rubbish??
We've got far more important things to deal with in this country...
More immediate things? yes, more important? not really
This is far further reaching and therefore important than you may realize. If ACTs bill doesn't happen or some equivalent then NZ will be one step closer to no longer being an independent nation and fall to the globalists losing our sovereignty. We have already taken several steps in that direction fyi
Fantasy World as "created by the Labour Party of New Zealand in 1974.... The British are famous for writing off the peasentry these ways from since well before Queen Victoria and so therefore will a Second Reading make any difference to the Maori enquiry about Principles make any difference whatsoever to Winston Peters and Christopher Luxon ?.... Anyone ?.... Anyone ?.... In a closed Parliament ?....
Why are all these overstayers complaining 😂😂😂
Having read the treaty, both english and maori and the ideas for the new bill they look to be saying the same thing...like exactly the same thing. I suspect what I'm missing is what the courts made up along the way building precedent....which I've seen be taken a long way with other laws. Right now for example the IRD decided to pretend I;m earning double what I am because they twisted one phrase "capacity to earn" to mean what they feel like I could be earning instead of what I'm actually managing to earn today.
I can appeal this in court but that would cost as much or more than what they are demanding!
Our court system grossly oversteps in my opinion, from enforcing law to re-writing it themselves. Seems that's what may have happened with the treaty.
That is messed up what they doing to you. If only you had an investment property to bring your taxable income down, or a failing wee business that cost are more than what it earns, you could possibly reduce your taxable income with the cost and the loss. An accountant may know about that. (cough). One judge made a comment about the treaty being "akin to a partnership" The radicals leapt onto the partnership part and have used that as grounds for the partnership principle since.
😅😅😅😅😅
Rip it up and take back everything that the Maoris were given.
Yes, and they get back all their land.
@@barneyboy2008 And they have to live as they did pre European.....yes I didn't think so.....
@@arnoldbraunschweiger4828 actually, looking the position they hold in society, I'm sure they would.
@@barneyboy2008 Looking at the position they hold in society.....you just keep playing the victim card on their behalf eh....it suits you well.....
@@arnoldbraunschweiger4828 if someone nicks all your land for less than fair value, by being the only buyer by way of a treaty. Yes, then I think you can play the victim card.
4:47 Principals as expressed by courts of treaty of Waitangi
Partnership
Crown to act in Good faith
Reciprocity
Mutual benefit
Informed decisions
Active protection of Maori
Principal of redress
Yep, 1, 3, 4 & 5 are either BS or non-existent
@@Fred-zw9kk yeah I only listed them for reference, can’t say I believe in them, especially as they were established at least 140 years after the treaty if not longer.
@@dave24-73 Only concocted to advance the gravy train. But now they're mentioned in legislation, alas, we have to address them. Seymour has proposed the best option so far as there will never be agreement to remove them from legislation.
Removing reference to the Treaty from all government legislation is critical. It seriously distorts laws, democracy, and much more. Either that or the meaning of "principles" need defining. Those developed to date by courts are very problematic, undemocratic and open to unending interpretation and exploitation by perpetual Maori distortions and grievances. Therein lies the problem.
This is aotearoa not England
Question. All them principles, are they not existing principles in respect of how the crown is to act towards NZ citizens (once British subjects) already?. A little wording cast aside I'm sure these principles in one way or another are already in place for all citizens? Magna carta comes to mind also for the crown being beholden to such protection for its subjects. I guess what I'm asking is are these principles asking for something we all already have, including Maori? They seem to like making the rights we all have sound like special rights just for them.
No, you need to read it in the context of what's been happening in NZ since 1975. We are well down the path of having two classes of citizenship. That need's correcting and for us all to understand what the Treaty really means, since so few seem to understand it.
@@Fred-zw9kk was this comment meant for me?
Iv been providing evidence to hundreds now that Maori did cede sovereignty in 1840.
My above questions and comments are simply seeking clarity if these bs principles are actually already in place in some form or another for us all, not just for Maori.
As if they are, these principles are worthless, just like the liars that push them.
@@HTDSNZ yep, it was as I wasn't sure where you were coming from? I'm glad you acknowledge Maori ceded sovereignty. There are no "accepted" principles to the Treaty, but if we want to rein-in the BS politicians have created, we absolutely need to define them and Seymour is on the right track. Leave the situation as it stands and NZ will be a third world country in a few decades. We should demand to have the choice which way we want to go.
@@Fred-zw9kk Ye i gathered you had got the wring end of the stick, we are in full agreement mate.
I have been battling in online debates for years over this now.
I provide the speeches by the chiefs on the 5th at Waitangi after being presented te tiriti (the treaty) that prove they knew they were ceding.
Would you like me to share so you have them?
Happy to.
I only raise the above questions as they keep claiming rights that we all have as special rights just for Maori.
@@HTDSNZ No thanks, I know where to reference them and am reasonably au fait with want went down on the 4th, 5th and 6th of Feb. Keep battling. 👍
Why NO MENTION that MOST if not ALL so called "MAORI" are AT LEAST part Pakeha /European, SO They are NOT " MAORI" they are Maori / European, NOT like in 1840 when there WERE Maori v's European.
NZ on fast track to backwater banana republic. Zimbabwe here we come !!
Zimbabwe good choice good luck
Save time and money. Call a national referendum. History is an ever growing piece of string. How long do certain parties want to drive the narrative of redress?
HE WAKAPUTANGA 1835 is the constitution of New Zealand - the treaty of Waitangi has never been legal
Maori ceded Kawanatanga - Governorship - which gave the right for the Crown to appoint a Governor (who can oversees government). The Treaty isnt about rights of Maori, it is about the Rights of Governorship ...
Boohoo go to Australia if you don’t like it 😂
That's even worse. They are trying to police the worlds speech right now.....as if policing speech in their own country wasn't bad enough
fark half the Maoris are over there 🤣
OBAMA; The Boss is back!!
Treaty:
"A formal written agreement between two or more nations."
For there to be a treaty first there must be at least two nations.
There never was a Maori nation.
Before the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi a group of Maori chiefs got together and formed "The United Tribes of New Zealand", which according to the relevant wokipedia essay, "was a confederation of Māori tribes based in the north of the North Island, existing legally from 1835 to 1840."
By what standard this confederation existed "legally" is not stated because there was no legal authority to recognise that at the time.
It is convenient to think that Te Tiriti was a legal treaty as there appear to be two "nations" involved but the signatories to the confederation only represented a small part of the landmass known now as New Zealand, and even for the area represented an agreement between talking heads does not constitute a nation. The same principle applies in the countries now known as Australia and USA.
Something akin to nations did exist but they extended, here and in those other countries noted, only to the land areas currently claimed and occupied by each individual tribe. Generally speaking, again here and abroad, those individual tribes were constantly at war.
The relevant claims to land "ownership" were by right of conquest, which right often but not always included the power to take defeated enemy as slaves and their women as concubines.
That is the system that prevailed in New Zealand up until 1840:
We beat you up: we take your stuff: we own you.
The government of Britain was under no obligations to Maori until 1840. It may have seemed like a good idea to Queen Victoria to document taking possession of New Zealand although it was by no means obligatory.
But it changed everything. While it should not have nullified land purchases made before 1840 the treaty and subsequent legislation did, although it could probably still be argued that such legislation had no standing.
By going through the motions of writing a document they called a treaty the British government effectively albeit retrospectively created and acknowledged a nominal Maori nation. The Maori "nation" did not exist prior to the signing of the treaty and was a creation of the treaty. Not making sense? You got it!
Once the treaty was signed by both parties both parties were bound by it. At this point it must be noted that whatever the original wording of the original English language version were the version that was signed was written in a transcription of the oral Maori language, at least one regional variation of it. And it must also be noted that the rules of treaties say that the party that did not write it is the party that gets to interpret it.
So forget about original English language treaties, they hold no weight in law. And post-signing translations to English have no greater authority than Maori wish to give them.
The colonisers made a huge mistake in creating and becoming party to an unnecessary binding agreement that was not theirs to interpret.
Now as to partnership, that is not an explicit term of the treaty but it is implicit in the very existence of the treaty. Maori, through their representatives, and the Queen, through her representatives, were parties to the treaty, and such arrangements are necessarily legally symmetrical, they are indeed partnerships. The treaty is a partnership agreement.
However, the terms of the treaty, as interpreted by the colonists side at least, are at odds with the idea of partnership, because the claim is that Maori people become subject to the laws of Britain, and immediately ceased to be the nation that the treaty created. I think the treaty self-destructed on signing. But that is not for me to say. I am subject to the laws that Victoria introduced to New Zealand and subject to Maori interpretation of the treaty.
The Treaty of Waitangi was a ridiculous, pointless, act of virtue signalling that has bound the Tangata Tiriti ever since. It is an embarrassment.
Even without it though, even if we argue that Britain took New Zealand by right of conquest, laws passed by the NZ government must be honoured. But so must reality. The people who have acted supposedly on behalf of Maori people have not served them well. Treaty reparations, largely justified, should have led to the dissolution of special Maori laws and government departments. Reparations should make good mistakes from the past. They did not. They cannot. Multiculturalism is a lie.
Maori tribal culture is a communal culture. That should have been recognised by all in the treaty negotiations process. That money that should have gone to maraes as the centres for Maori housing and education did not find its way there. That is down to "Maori leaders", not the descendants of colonists, and more recent immigrants.
Well said.
I will add here that as the chiefs (Maori) are the ones who get to interpret te tiriti we would do well to focus on what the chiefs present at Waitangi thought (interpreted) te tiriti to say.
If we know what they interpreted it to say then we would be bound to go off that would we not.
If so, those of Maori ancestry today would have to go off what the chiefs (Maori) interpreted it to say also, they could not revise that interpretation. This leads to the evidence that is the speeches given by the chiefs on the 5th at Waitangi made after being presented te tiriti.
The first to speak were against signing (many later changed their mind and signed anyway) and the rest were pro signing.
We can see from these speeches what the chiefs knew te tiriti to say and mean regarding the ceding of sovereignty in te tiriti.
These speeches prove the chiefs knew by signing they would become less than, lower than the queen and her governor even.
They also show they knew they would be subject to the queen and her laws. These are not the words of men who thought te tiriti said they got to retain sovereignty or that they would be exempt from the queens rule or laws.
This is Maori council/iwi evidence entered into court record by them, so not biased whitey evidence.
They authenticated them as a true, full and correct translation of the words spoken by the chiefs that day.
1. Te Kemara, chief of the Ngatikawa: ......"If thou stayers 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 equality, then perhaps, Te Kemara would say "Yes", but for the Governor to be up and Te Kamara down - Governor high, up, up, up and Te Kamara down, low, small, a worm, a crawler - No, no, no."
2. Rewa, chief of the Ngaitawake tribe: "What do Natives want of a Governor? We are not whites, nor foreigners. This country is ours, but the land has gone, Nevertheless, we are the Governor - we, the Chiefs of this our father's land. I will not say Yes to the Governor’s remaining"
3. Kawiti, chief of the Ngatihine Tribe: "No, no. Go back. What dost thou want here? We Native men do not wish thee to stay. We do not want to be tied up and trodden down....... I, even I Kawiti, must not paddle this way, nor paddle that way because the Governor says No"
4. Hakiro (speaking on behalf of his chief): "I say, no, no, no. Go back, go back; Do not sit here. What wilst thou sit here for? We are not thy people. We are free. We will not have a Governor. Return. Leave us"
5. Tareha, chief of the Ngatirehia Tribe: "No Govenor for me - for us Native men. We, we only are the chiefs , rulers. We will not be ruled over. What! thou, a foreigner, up and I down! Thou high and I Tareha, the great chief of the Ngapuhi tribes , Low. No, no; never; Never;....... Yes, I say we are the Chiefs. If all were to be alike, all equal in rank with thee - but thou, the Governor up high - up, up, and I down, under beneath! No. no. no!".
(1) Colenso, William. The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand, February 5 and 6, 1840. First published in 1890.
(2) NZ Maori Council vs Attorney General - New Zealand Law Report
(3) Māori Council's Lands Case against the Crown in 2014.
would love to hear your thoughts on this?
you know what a partnership, i could sorta see , but i have a fear of the very very Racist Te Party Party , i feel they would like to burn , kill and throw me and every whitey or not of their colour, outta this land, a kind of hatred i see from like Hamas to Israel
I have to defer to others on matters of fact. I have not studied the events of the treaty signing. I get the impression from your reply that initially those who you quote originally objected to the idea of ceding sovereignty, and while they were aware that that was what they were agreeing to eventually signed.
I learned of the idea of consensus from marae visits and have since taken it to mean everyone agrees, not a majority or a vague general impression as the word has been twisted to mean in recent years but everyone agrees to stand by a decision, even if they have reservations. As long as there is a standout there is no consensus. It certainly sounds from what you have related that a consensus was ultimately reached, despite those initial reservations. That would tend to give validity to the document and confirm that ceding sovereignty happened, reluctantly for some, but they did sign, and not under duress. Thank you for the discussion.
@@jeremyashford2145 No worries, it is good to be able to produce the documented interpretation of the chiefs who were actually presented te tiriti.
As you have stated that would be the interpretation we would be bound by.
This means todays lots interpretation can be dismissed for the nonsense it it.
@HTDSNZ
I was just reminded by one of the other comments why the treaty was pushed.
Not all virtue signalling, as I suggested, but an attempt to get in before the French. And, also, from the other side, Maori wanted to bring their own peoples together too. Stop the intertribal carnage.
oliver oliver oliver get over your act party blues accept there will be and can not be a national debate for the treaty principals and also why do you cut your interviews short do you only want all to hear your point of view ?
Yes.
Wrong
@@petertrott5107 How can it be wrong if you have no idea what he is saying..? :):)
@@paulmeersa7162☝️😄🤷
What Sean Plonker fails to understand is that whenever two parties sign an agreement, like the TOW they are entering into a partnership. Now there maybe a senior partner and a junior partner or majority partner. But it's still a partnership. Can someone plz get this through Plonkers hairpiece so it gets down to his brain 😂
No , the agreement is simply what they signed up to , no less , no more .
@@andrewcampbell2903 WRONG, because the agreement was seen as ongoing, the initial agreement was viewed as a starting point. Remembering the Crown sought the right to have the first and sole right to buy land from Maori, that's if Maori wanted to sell land. That is a partnership. Infact it is an exclusive partnership, because Maori essentially agreed to only deal with the Crown when it came to land sales. Gee it makes my day schooling you silly alt right rednecks up lol
@@andrewcampbell2903 WRONG, the initial agreement was seen as a starting point because the treaty was on going. Remembering the Crown sought first and exclusive rights to buy land from Maori, if Maori were to decide to sell their lands . Maori could have said no, and sold to the highest bidder, like the French or Dutch. But no they entered into an exclusive partnership with the Crown.That my silly alt right friend is a partnership and that is why Judge Cook described it as a partnership.
Scared old men barking at parked cars😮😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.
Because they're not, the Waitangi tribunal will say anything to get the money.
ERRATTA:
@jaybill392
0 seconds ago
Again WINSTON talks out of BOTH sides of HIS MOUTH saying there are NO PRINCILES of the TREATY & then say's HE WILL KEEP SOME in law / legislation. Same old Winston double talk, eg vote for me ; & NZ 1st " WON'T go with National & he DID.
Seymore is right, we don't want to be dictated to have a vote democratic one
Not true cause the maori did not cede sovereignty ballhead
They did. You may want to read the treaty yourself. Both versions say it. They gave it to the queen in exchange for being british subjects with all the rights that come with that, specifically mentioning property rights.
Or would you rather go back to war with the British empire and find out who comes out on top?
geez its three paragraphs if you cant understand that , god help ya.
yes you can make it into what you want it to be , and that ok, i mean you can even believe your a woman if you want , but then reality kicks in