https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.html
This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the
claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior
judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do
their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though
that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN
government pushes legislation through . . .
This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by theParliament is the highest court in this country. Period. Nothing and nobody has any greater authority.
claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior
judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do
their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though
that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN
government pushes legislation through . . .
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire. A
wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.htmlReally? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to
This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the
claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .
read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior
judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do
their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though
that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN
government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister
about proposed legislation changes?
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>The treaty is not and never has been a contract. Parliament is above all of our courts. It is actually that simple. They can do whatever they decide - fortunately so far, apart from tha last parliament, our elected body has behaved reasonably well in the absence of a written constitution.
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire. A
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.htmlReally? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to
This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .
read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though
that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister
about proposed legislation changes?
bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given
authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour. Even
in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised
to demand that. The High Court seems to think that the Waitangi
Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Read here:
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
In effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister was
effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour,
Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the
Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I have
missed).
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the
courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament
to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear
promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The
Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties
being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether
or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little
agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on
behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to
sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to
break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What
word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting
obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will
ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there
actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they
cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Contract was made by Representatives of the Queen, a long time
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:The treaty is not and never has been a contract. Parliament is above all of our
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire. A
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.html >>>>Really? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to
This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .
read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though >>>>that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister >>>about proposed legislation changes?
bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given
authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour. Even
in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised
to demand that. The High Court seems to think that the Waitangi
Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Read here: >>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
In effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister was
effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour,
Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >>information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the >>Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I have
missed).
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the >>courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament
to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear
promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The
Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties
being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >>honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether
or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little
agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on
behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to
sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to
break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What
word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting
obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will
ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >>Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there >>actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they >>cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
courts. It is actually that simple. They can do whatever they decide - >fortunately so far, apart from tha last parliament, our elected body has >behaved reasonably well in the absence of a written constitution.
This entire issue has no importance because it is ethereal and motivated by >politics not law.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:See: https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/school-resources/treaty-past-and-present/section-5/
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 04:37:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is no such contract.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Contract was made by Representatives of the Queen, a long time
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:The treaty is not and never has been a contract. Parliament is above all of >>>our
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire. A >>>>bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given >>>>authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour. Even >>>>in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised >>>>to demand that. The High Court seems to think that the Waitangi >>>>Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Really? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to >>>>>read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>>>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.html >>>>>>
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>>>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>>>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though >>>>>>that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>>>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister >>>>>about proposed legislation changes?
Read here: >>>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
In effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister was >>>>effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour, >>>>Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >>>>information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the >>>>Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I have
missed).
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets >>>>laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the >>>>courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament >>>>to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear >>>>promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The >>>>Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties >>>>being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >>>>honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether
or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little >>>>agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on
behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to
sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to >>>>break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What >>>>word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting >>>>obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will >>>>ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >>>>Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there >>>>actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they >>>>cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
courts. It is actually that simple. They can do whatever they decide - >>>fortunately so far, apart from tha last parliament, our elected body has >>>behaved reasonably well in the absence of a written constitution.
This entire issue has no importance because it is ethereal and motivated by >>>politics not law.
before the NZ Parliament was formed, and the responsibility for
honouring that fundamental contract between two people gradually
devolved to the New Zealand Government as we moved from being a Colony
to become an semi-independent state under the Statute of Westminster,
to now being a fully independent country.
Nobody is suggesting reneging on any contract - where do you get that idea? The proposed legislation - but you already knew that.
No New Zealand government before now has reneged on a major documented >>agreement - in this case an agreement that was made between two
peoples over 150 years ago. Successive government have honoured the
Treaty and reached honourable settlements relating to many historic
claims that were found to be justified. Nothing indicates the lack of >>acumen, knowledge and honour of Christopher Luxon, Winston Peters and
David Seymour more than the attempts that they are now making to
pretend that Parliament is bound by a private agreement between those
three people; it remains to be seen whether sufficient MPs in any of
those parties are sufficiently honourable to vote against legislation
that would gravely reduce the trust in New Zealand that is needed for >>effective international agreements . . .
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 04:37:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is no such contract.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Contract was made by Representatives of the Queen, a long time
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:The treaty is not and never has been a contract. Parliament is above all of >>our
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire. A >>>bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given
Really? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to >>>>read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.html >>>>>
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though >>>>>that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister >>>>about proposed legislation changes?
authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour. Even
in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised
to demand that. The High Court seems to think that the Waitangi
Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Read here: >>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
In effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister was
effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour, >>>Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >>>information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the >>>Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I have
missed).
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the >>>courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament
to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear >>>promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The
Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties >>>being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >>>honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether
or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little
agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on
behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to
sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to
break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What
word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting >>>obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will >>>ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >>>Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there >>>actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they >>>cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
courts. It is actually that simple. They can do whatever they decide - >>fortunately so far, apart from tha last parliament, our elected body has >>behaved reasonably well in the absence of a written constitution.
This entire issue has no importance because it is ethereal and motivated by >>politics not law.
before the NZ Parliament was formed, and the responsibility for
honouring that fundamental contract between two people gradually
devolved to the New Zealand Government as we moved from being a Colony
to become an semi-independent state under the Statute of Westminster,
to now being a fully independent country.
No New Zealand government before now has reneged on a major documented >agreement - in this case an agreement that was made between twoNobody is suggesting reneging on any contract - where do you get that idea?
peoples over 150 years ago. Successive government have honoured the
Treaty and reached honourable settlements relating to many historic
claims that were found to be justified. Nothing indicates the lack of
acumen, knowledge and honour of Christopher Luxon, Winston Peters and
David Seymour more than the attempts that they are now making to
pretend that Parliament is bound by a private agreement between those
three people; it remains to be seen whether sufficient MPs in any of
those parties are sufficiently honourable to vote against legislation
that would gravely reduce the trust in New Zealand that is needed for >effective international agreements . . .
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:33:53 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>It probably is: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/whole.html#DLM435392
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire.
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.html >>>>Really? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to
This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .
read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though >>>>that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister >>>about proposed legislation changes?
Cite please. If correct it would be the longest-running such
Commission.
Which is not the same work as the Onbudsman or the Auditor General - IA
bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given
authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour.
Incorrect. The Waitangi Tribunal was established for a specific
purpose and is limited to its jurisdiction by the Act it was
established under.
Being required to appear in court for certain offences is common toEven
in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised
to demand that.
A criminal court in a foreign jurisdiction. By what fiction of logic
do you think that is relevant?
On very narrow technical grounds which have nothing to do with theThe High Court seems to think that the WaitangiIncorrect. The High Court has ruled that the Cabinet Minister is not >required to respond to the summons.
Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Read here: >>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
Parliament can call people to appear before it in certain specified circumstances, and can in certain narrow circumstances determineIn effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister wasParliament is a court but delegates enforcement of Acts to the
effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour,
Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >>information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the >>Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I have
missed).
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the >>courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
judiciary. You are making stuff up.
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament
to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear
promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The
Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties
being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >>honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether
or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little
agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on
behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to
sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to
break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What
word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting
obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will
ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >>Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there >>actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they >>cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
All contentious inventions based on ill-advised considerations.
Parliament set up the Waitangi Tribunal and may well consider it
should be abolished.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire.
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.htmlReally? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to
This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .
read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though
that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister
about proposed legislation changes?
A
bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given
authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour.
Even
in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised
to demand that.
The High Court seems to think that the Waitangi
Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Read here:
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
In effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister was
effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour,
Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the
Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I have
missed).
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the
courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament
to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear
promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The
Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties
being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether
or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little
agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on
behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to
sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to
break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What
word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting
obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will
ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there
actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they
cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:29:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is no contract.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:See: >https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/school-resources/treaty-past-and-present/section-5/
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 04:37:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is no such contract.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The Contract was made by Representatives of the Queen, a long time
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:The treaty is not and never has been a contract. Parliament is above all of >>>>our
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire. A >>>>>bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given >>>>>authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour. Even >>>>>in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised >>>>>to demand that. The High Court seems to think that the Waitangi >>>>>Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Really? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to >>>>>>read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>>>>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.html >>>>>>>
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>>>>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>>>>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though >>>>>>>that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>>>>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister >>>>>>about proposed legislation changes?
Read here: >>>>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
In effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister was >>>>>effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour, >>>>>Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >>>>>information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the >>>>>Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I have >>>>>missed).
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets >>>>>laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the >>>>>courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament >>>>>to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear >>>>>promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The >>>>>Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties >>>>>being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >>>>>honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether >>>>>or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little >>>>>agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on >>>>>behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to >>>>>sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to >>>>>break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What >>>>>word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting >>>>>obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will >>>>>ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >>>>>Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there >>>>>actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they >>>>>cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
courts. It is actually that simple. They can do whatever they decide - >>>>fortunately so far, apart from tha last parliament, our elected body has >>>>behaved reasonably well in the absence of a written constitution.
This entire issue has no importance because it is ethereal and motivated by >>>>politics not law.
before the NZ Parliament was formed, and the responsibility for
honouring that fundamental contract between two people gradually
devolved to the New Zealand Government as we moved from being a Colony
to become an semi-independent state under the Statute of Westminster,
to now being a fully independent country.
From which: "The Treaty was a contract of respect between the British
and Maori. Today, there are a lot of people living here whose families
are not from Britain. The Treaty now means there must be respect
between Maori and non-Maori.
It is important that the laws and rules today consider and respect
both Maori and non-Maori ways of living. It is important that Maori
and non-Maori who live near each other are considerate of each other
and respect each other's differences.
Trust
A contract will work only if both groups who sign it trust that the
other group will do what the contract says they will do.
The Maori who signed the Treaty trusted that the British would makeThere is no contract.
laws that would be good for both them and the settlers. Unfortunately,
as we have seen from what happened in Taranaki, the laws were often
good for the Government and for the settlers, but not for Maori."
Nobody is suggesting reneging on any contract - where do you get that idea? >The proposed legislation - but you already knew that.
No New Zealand government before now has reneged on a major documented >>>agreement - in this case an agreement that was made between two
peoples over 150 years ago. Successive government have honoured the >>>Treaty and reached honourable settlements relating to many historic >>>claims that were found to be justified. Nothing indicates the lack of >>>acumen, knowledge and honour of Christopher Luxon, Winston Peters and >>>David Seymour more than the attempts that they are now making to
pretend that Parliament is bound by a private agreement between those >>>three people; it remains to be seen whether sufficient MPs in any of >>>those parties are sufficiently honourable to vote against legislation >>>that would gravely reduce the trust in New Zealand that is needed for >>>effective international agreements . . .
For a different view, the following was written to David Seymour after
his appearance at Waitangi:
Opinion: Sir Ian Taylor - a letter to Act leader David SeymourEntirely off topic.
OPINION
Dear David,
I do have some sympathy for your views on the labels that people place
on each other.
Obviously, this did rile you a little at the recent Waitangi Day
celebrations where you were likened to a couple of insects – but I
will come back to that later.
Perhaps, like you, I am not sure where in the Maori world I sit.
At one end I could be on Willie Jackson’s “useless Maori” list because
I don’t have te reo or, at the other end, I could be one of Matua
Winston Peters’ “elite Maori” list because I have, I admit, been late
in my discovery and understanding of the power of Te Ao Maori.
The irony for me of this observation is that here we are – you, me,
Willie and Winston, all of us who whakapapa Maori – all seemingly
divided by those labels that we place on each other, to the delight of
anyone looking to highlight those divisions.
And while I have been late coming to this understanding of the power
of Te Ao Maori, it has highlighted for me that I have always
understood who I was.
I am the son of a Pakeha father who came from Nightcaps in the South
Island and a Maori mother from Mohaka in Hawke’s Bay.
It has also highlighted the wonderful way my mother, Mangu Rose,
together with my fabulous aunties, instilled in me, by example rather
than words, what it meant to be Maori. Those powerful lessons they
shared have served to enlighten me on this voyage of discovery that I
am on.
Which brings me back to the divisive name-calling and the reference to >“insects” to which you responded: “Today I have heard people say that
we are spiders, that we are sandflies, well I am sorry to say folks
not even Donald Trump is calling opponents insects.”
Now I know you have a huge passion for the education of our tamariki,
our young people, of all cultures.
But you and I were both brought up in an education system that for
decades failed to address the history of Aotearoa much beyond the
arrival of Abel Tasman and Captain Cook, who landed here more than 700
years after Kupe, ending a journey of discovery by our Polynesian
tupuna that began 3500 years ago.
A multi-generational journey that has been described as “the greatest
voyage in the history of human migration”.
It’s a voyage across the largest expanse of open water on the planet,
Te Moana-nui-a-kiwa, the Pacific Ocean, using advanced knowledge of
the stars, sun and ocean currents to discover every piece of land in
that great expanse of ocean, completing the history of human migration
here in Aotearoa New Zealand and, shortly after, the Chatham Islands.
It’s an amazing story that needs to be told if we are to move our
Pasifika and Maori tamariki, along with their friends from all other >cultures, into those high-value jobs that are increasingly based on
science and innovation and for which you are such a strong advocate.
But our Polynesian ancestors could not have crossed the largest
expanse of open water on the planet without developing a deep
knowledge of astronomy, astrology, science, maths and engineering.
They called it Matauranga, an indigenous view of the world that
includes all of those subjects we have lumped under the acronym Stem >(Science, technology, engineering and maths) in our schools.
But we need to be telling these stories in our schools to inspire our
young people that this thing we call Stem is in their DNA.
It is only now that I have come to understand how deeply that was
ingrained in my DNA.
This has led me to understand that it is the combination of
Matauranga, alongside the maths, physics and science expertise that my
Pakeha colleagues have brought with them, that can truly explain our >company’s position as a global leader in the world of technology.
So, to those insects.
The reference that was made was not to actual insects. They were a
reference to a eulogy that was given by the great chief Te Ruki
Kawiti, almost certainly an ancestor of yours, who just a few years
after the signing of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, took on the British
army at Ruapekapeka where, along with Hone Heke, they built one of the
most advanced defensive structures the British Army had ever come up
against.
It is a fascinating story that needs to be part of our science,
engineering and maths curriculum (we are working on that) but the
reference to sandflies comes from that eulogy made by Kawiti to his
people after the battle was over in which he said: “I have battled the
gods of the night and yet I did not die. Now is the time to trample
our wrath beneath our feet. Now is the time to be confident in who we
are. Now is the time to talk peace. But as we do, we must never turn
our backs on the parchment [Te Tiriti] because if we do, we can be
certain that the sandflies will nip at its edges.”
We are watching those sandflies gather and it is only right that we >acknowledge that this was a threat that Kawiti recognised when he
called for his people to talk peace almost two centuries ago.
It is context.
My hope is that all tamariki of Aotearoa New Zealand will grow up >understanding the context in which so many of these important
discussions should be taking place.
You and I were denied these powerful stories, but now is the
opportunity to address that for our young people.
And one last observation if I may, David.
One could argue that there has already been a referendum on the
Treaty.
That happened back in 1840 when the Maori population of the country
was 125,000 whilst the colonists numbered just 2000.
That would of course mean that at the time te Tiriti was signed the
colonists were outnumbered by Maori by more than 60:1 which would
surely mean that the official language of the country would have been
te reo Maori and that the Treaty that took precedence would have been
the one written in the language of the majority.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:45:35 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:33:53 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:It probably is: >https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/whole.html#DLM435392
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire.
Really? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to >>>>read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.html >>>>>
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though >>>>>that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister >>>>about proposed legislation changes?
Cite please. If correct it would be the longest-running such
Commission.
Which is not the same work as the Onbudsman or the Auditor General - I
A
bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given
authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour.
Incorrect. The Waitangi Tribunal was established for a specific
purpose and is limited to its jurisdiction by the Act it was
established under.
was indicating that each of those were given authority by parliament
to do their work without fear or favour - but in different areas.
Being required to appear in court for certain offences is common to
Even
in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised
to demand that.
A criminal court in a foreign jurisdiction. By what fiction of logic
do you think that is relevant?
most jurisdictions. Are you able to point to any authority for a
Minister not to appear before the Waitangi Tribunal? The decision
relied on custom; we now know there is to be an appeal.
On very narrow technical grounds which have nothing to do with the
The High Court seems to think that the WaitangiIncorrect. The High Court has ruled that the Cabinet Minister is not >>required to respond to the summons.
Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Read here: >>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
Waitangi Tribunal legislation - and that decision is to go to appeal
Parliament can call people to appear before it in certain specified >circumstances, and can in certain narrow circumstances determineIn effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister wasParliament is a court but delegates enforcement of Acts to the
effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour, >>>Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >>>information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the >>>Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I have
missed).
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the >>>courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
judiciary. You are making stuff up.
punishment. It does however not generally act as a Court - while it
can change laws it must go through certain processes to change laws. >Enforcement of legislation is given to a wide variety of bodies,
including for example police.
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament
to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear >>>promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The
Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties >>>being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >>>honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether
or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little
agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on
behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to
sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to
break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What
word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting >>>obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will >>>ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >>>Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there >>>actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they >>>cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
All contentious inventions based on ill-advised considerations.
Parliament set up the Waitangi Tribunal and may well consider it
should be abolished.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:56:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>I suspect the surprise is because there has been a lot of
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:45:35 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Thanks for that. There are major surprises in the Act. The Waitangi >Tribunal is indeed deemed a Commission of Inquiry and does have the
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:33:53 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:It probably is: >>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/whole.html#DLM435392
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire.
Really? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to >>>>>read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>>>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.html >>>>>>
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>>>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>>>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though >>>>>>that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>>>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister >>>>>about proposed legislation changes?
Cite please. If correct it would be the longest-running such
Commission.
right to summons people to appear before it (Section 8 of Schedule 2)
and does have the right to review planned legislation (Section 1(b))
Which is not the same work as the Onbudsman or the Auditor General - I
A
bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given >>>>authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour.
Incorrect. The Waitangi Tribunal was established for a specific
purpose and is limited to its jurisdiction by the Act it was
established under.
was indicating that each of those were given authority by parliament
to do their work without fear or favour - but in different areas.
Being required to appear in court for certain offences is common to
Even
in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised >>>>to demand that.
A criminal court in a foreign jurisdiction. By what fiction of logic
do you think that is relevant?
most jurisdictions. Are you able to point to any authority for a
Minister not to appear before the Waitangi Tribunal? The decision
relied on custom; we now know there is to be an appeal.
On very narrow technical grounds which have nothing to do with the
The High Court seems to think that the WaitangiIncorrect. The High Court has ruled that the Cabinet Minister is not >>>required to respond to the summons.
Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Read here: >>>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
Waitangi Tribunal legislation - and that decision is to go to appeal
Parliament can call people to appear before it in certain specified >>circumstances, and can in certain narrow circumstances determine >>punishment. It does however not generally act as a Court - while itIn effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister was >>>>effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour, >>>>Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >>>>information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the >>>>Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I haveParliament is a court but delegates enforcement of Acts to the
missed).
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets >>>>laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the >>>>courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
judiciary. You are making stuff up.
can change laws it must go through certain processes to change laws. >>Enforcement of legislation is given to a wide variety of bodies,
including for example police.
Given developments in an earlier part of this post I find the
situation interesting where the Tribunal is a Commission of Inquiry
and the person summons is a Cabinet Minister.
The provisions of Section 8 are that the Tribunal can submit a reportIt appears that the government does not have an explanation for its
on any proposed legislation in respect of compliance (or not) with the
ToW. That report must be given to the Minister of Maori Affairs and
tabled in Parliament. There is no mention that I can find that the >Government must act on any such report.
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament >>>>to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear >>>>promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The >>>>Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties >>>>being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >>>>honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether
or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little >>>>agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on
behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to
sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to >>>>break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What >>>>word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting >>>>obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will >>>>ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >>>>Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there >>>>actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they >>>>cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
All contentious inventions based on ill-advised considerations. >>>Parliament set up the Waitangi Tribunal and may well consider it
should be abolished.
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:59:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:56:31 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I suspect the surprise is because there has been a lot of
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:45:35 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Thanks for that. There are major surprises in the Act. The Waitangi >>Tribunal is indeed deemed a Commission of Inquiry and does have the
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:33:53 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:It probably is: >>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/whole.html#DLM435392
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:20:18 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:39:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:Because it is a Commission of Inquiry, and it is its job to enquire.
Really? This is of passing interest, given that it is impossible to >>>>>>read or watch any news outlet without being confronted by it.This is a timely issue for New Zealand, as we become bemused by the >>>>>>>claims by Trump that he should not have to appear in court . . .https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/04/comity-versus-rule-of-law.html >>>>>>>
Is our legal system any better than that of the USA? Are our senior >>>>>>>judges so beholden to the executive of Parliament that they cannot do >>>>>>>their job properly? I agree that an appeal is desirable, even though >>>>>>>that may take up more than the time available before the ACt1stN >>>>>>>government pushes legislation through . . .
The legal system in the USA is vastly different to ours.
Why does the Waitangi Tribunal feel it can summons a Cabinet Minister >>>>>>about proposed legislation changes?
Cite please. If correct it would be the longest-running such >>>>Commission.
right to summons people to appear before it (Section 8 of Schedule 2)
and does have the right to review planned legislation (Section 1(b))
mis-information and dis-information about the Treaty and the
legislation. the Tribunal is I think required to provide government
with a report on proposed legislation that relates to the Treaty, and
they will know that this needs to be provided urgently to fit within
timings indicated by Government.
The suggestion has been that normally it would not be necessary to
Which is not the same work as the Onbudsman or the Auditor General - I >>>was indicating that each of those were given authority by parliament
A
bit like the Ombudsman and the Auditor General - they are given >>>>>authority by Parliament to do their work without fear or favour.
Incorrect. The Waitangi Tribunal was established for a specific >>>>purpose and is limited to its jurisdiction by the Act it was >>>>established under.
to do their work without fear or favour - but in different areas.
Being required to appear in court for certain offences is common to
Even
in the USA, Trump has been required to appear before a body authorised >>>>>to demand that.
A criminal court in a foreign jurisdiction. By what fiction of logic >>>>do you think that is relevant?
most jurisdictions. Are you able to point to any authority for a
Minister not to appear before the Waitangi Tribunal? The decision
relied on custom; we now know there is to be an appeal.
On very narrow technical grounds which have nothing to do with the >>>Waitangi Tribunal legislation - and that decision is to go to appeal
The High Court seems to think that the WaitangiIncorrect. The High Court has ruled that the Cabinet Minister is not >>>>required to respond to the summons.
Tribunal should not demand what they are entitled to.
Read here: >>>>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZHC-931.pdf
Parliament can call people to appear before it in certain specified >>>circumstances, and can in certain narrow circumstances determine >>>punishment. It does however not generally act as a Court - while itIn effect, the Court is saying that because the Minister was >>>>>effectively not involved in the decision, which was made by Seymour, >>>>>Peters and Luxon, and because the department had provided a lot of >>>>>information, the attendance of the Minister was not critical for the >>>>>Tribunal (my words, though so there may be implications I have >>>>>missed).Parliament is a court but delegates enforcement of Acts to the >>>>judiciary. You are making stuff up.
The next logical extension ofAnd that is because Parliament is not a court. Yes Parliament sets >>>>>laws, but it is up to various agencies (most often the police and the >>>>>courts, but others as well) to see that they are enforced
that is that Parliament is no longer the highest court in NZ.
can change laws it must go through certain processes to change laws. >>>Enforcement of legislation is given to a wide variety of bodies, >>>including for example police.
Given developments in an earlier part of this post I find the
situation interesting where the Tribunal is a Commission of Inquiry
and the person summons is a Cabinet Minister.
summon a Minister - but that in this case the Minister has not
provided answers to the questions asked; specifically what the purpose
of and reason for a particular change is. This is a recognition that
The treaty of Waitangi is a significant part of our Laws,and that
there are different views held in relation tot he Treaty, not all of
those views being supported by facts. Under the circumstances it is
desirable that any changes are reasonably well known as to both intent
and effect, and that expert commentary is obtained that the public can
be kept well informed. Those principles apply to most legislation, and
are not usually an issue; successive governments have worked hard to
settle Treaty Claims on an established basis, and are aware that there
are still some claims to be settled, but that there is ongoing work to
be done to ensure that all provisions are met by those involved - many
of the settlements for example have created rights and obligations
that are long term in nature for both Government and Maori.
It appears that the government does not have an explanation for its
The provisions of Section 8 are that the Tribunal can submit a report
on any proposed legislation in respect of compliance (or not) with the
ToW. That report must be given to the Minister of Maori Affairs and
tabled in Parliament. There is no mention that I can find that the >>Government must act on any such report.
proposals that would be acceptable to all parties to the Treaty, and
that the Tribunal is concerned that the government has not provided
necessary explanations as to what is proposed and the reasons for
those proposals. I suspect also that the reason the Minister does not
wish to appear is because that lack of adequate reason for changes
will become evident, or alternatively that the Minister knows little
more than that the issue was part of the Coalition agreements and that
it is not being handled in Government though the Minister. For
whatever reason, the Government is making it difficult for a
Government body to fulfil the requirements demanded of it through
enabling legislation. Thankfully, the Tribunal is doing its job, as
are the Press, and this failure of government to comply with
legislative requirements is becoming known to the wider public.
The issue at stake is in one sense whether it is lawful for Parliament >>>>>to set aside a Treaty made to end a War subject to firm and clear >>>>>promises by the Crown to Maori and their descendents forever. The >>>>>Treaty has been supported by previous governments; with some parties >>>>>being adamant that a contract gives rise to commitments that must be >>>>>honoured. Seymour, Peters and Luxon appear to be saying that whether >>>>>or not it is dishonourable, they are going to put their little >>>>>agreement as a priority to force Parliament to make decisions on >>>>>behalf of the Crown to no honour the Treaty. Would you be happy to >>>>>sign a contract with anyone who has shown that they are prepared to >>>>>break a contract should they think that is in their interests? What >>>>>word would you use for people that are responsible for meeting >>>>>obligations under a contract and unilaterally decide that they will >>>>>ignore the contract?
At the least they are being irresponsible and bringing the New Zealand >>>>>Government into disrepute - are they the sort of scumbags that there >>>>>actions are now telling all New Zealanders, not just Maori, that they >>>>>cannot be trusted to meet their obligations under contracts?
All contentious inventions based on ill-advised considerations. >>>>Parliament set up the Waitangi Tribunal and may well consider it
should be abolished.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:14:57 |
| Calls: | 9,828 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,192,013 |