https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements
has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will
cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B
of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all
dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us.
* your guess?
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunal
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements
has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will
cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B
of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all
dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us.
* your guess?
should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunalhttps://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will
cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B
of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all
dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us.
* your guess?
should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes
arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations.
Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its
legal contracts?
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunal
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements
has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will
cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B
of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all
dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us.
* your guess?
should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunalhttps://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us.
* your guess?
should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes
arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its
legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to
legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the
supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each
new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that
preceded it.
In summary:The parliament makes law not the tribunal. (ignoring your silly ideas).
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements
has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will
cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B
of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all
dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us.
* your guess?
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:18:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>That is no answer at all Government does what we elect them to do. Period. If that means cancelling a contrcat then so be it.
wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunalhttps://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us. >>>>>* your guess?
should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes
arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its >>>legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to
legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the >>supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each
new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that
preceded it.
The simple answer is that our Government is bound to honour contracts,
both by the danger of reputational damage if they did renege on a
contract, and because they have agreed to abide by International Laws
in numerous trade and other agreements. For example if they just told
all users of Coal that they were introducing an emissions tax of the
cost of excess emissions for every ton of coal burnt, that could not
be appealed as being unfair . . .
Should the Government refuse to honour te Tiriti o Waitangi then ICompletely unrelated nonsense.
would be surprised if Maori did not appeal that decision to the
International Courts . . .
Can you imagine the fuss for example if the additional work apparently >required on Transmission Gully was not commissioned and paid for in
terms of the contract they have with a consortium of financiers?
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Irrelevant, that is not what this is about.
wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunalhttps://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will
cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B
of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all
dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us.
* your guess?
should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes
arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations.
Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its
legal contracts?
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>We do however expect Parliament to pay due respect to our laws, and
wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunalhttps://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us.
* your guess?
should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes
arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its
legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to
legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the
supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each
new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that
preceded it.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:18:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:We do however expect Parliament to pay due respect to our laws, and
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunalhttps://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us. >>>>>* your guess?
should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes
arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its >>>legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to
legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the >>supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each
new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that
preceded it.
the decision of the High Court to allow a Minister to not appear when >summoned to the Waitangi Tribunal has been overturned: >https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/court-of-appeal/
In the meantime the objectionable legislation has been rushed into
parliament - where doubtless your assertion that the Government can
renege on agreements and contracts may well be tested - would you
trust a government that broke contracts?
On Tue, 14 May 2024 09:46:49 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:18:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:We do however expect Parliament to pay due respect to our laws, and
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunal >>>>>should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us. >>>>>>* your guess?
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes >>>>arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>>>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its >>>>legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to >>>legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the >>>supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each
new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that >>>preceded it.
the decision of the High Court to allow a Minister to not appear when >>summoned to the Waitangi Tribunal has been overturned: >>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/court-of-appeal/
In the meantime the objectionable legislation has been rushed into >>parliament - where doubtless your assertion that the Government can
renege on agreements and contracts may well be tested - would you
trust a government that broke contracts?
Do you really want to go there Rich? Check out the Labour Manifesto >published prior to the 2020 election then try to justify '3 Waters'.
This is the only time we had a single-party Government and it ended
badly.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:09:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 09:46:49 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:18:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:We do however expect Parliament to pay due respect to our laws, and
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunal >>>>>>should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the governmentÂ’s >>>>>>>consideration:
* the TribunalÂ’s concern that the governmentÂ’s singular focus on the >>>>>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the TribunalÂ’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us. >>>>>>>* your guess?
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes >>>>>arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>>>>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its >>>>>legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to >>>>legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the >>>>supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each >>>>new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that >>>>preceded it.
the decision of the High Court to allow a Minister to not appear when >>>summoned to the Waitangi Tribunal has been overturned: >>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/court-of-appeal/
In the meantime the objectionable legislation has been rushed into >>>parliament - where doubtless your assertion that the Government can >>>renege on agreements and contracts may well be tested - would you
trust a government that broke contracts?
Do you really want to go there Rich? Check out the Labour Manifesto >>published prior to the 2020 election then try to justify '3 Waters'.
This is the only time we had a single-party Government and it ended
badly.
The 3 Waters proposals did not contravene any government contracts or
formal agreements. What are you talking about?
All governments pass legislation that the opposition do not like; but
very few actively seek to trash contracts or formal agreements.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:09:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 09:46:49 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:18:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:We do however expect Parliament to pay due respect to our laws, and
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunal >>>>>>should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us. >>>>>>>* your guess?
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes >>>>>arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>>>>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its >>>>>legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to >>>>legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the >>>>supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each >>>>new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that >>>>preceded it.
the decision of the High Court to allow a Minister to not appear when >>>summoned to the Waitangi Tribunal has been overturned: >>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/court-of-appeal/
In the meantime the objectionable legislation has been rushed into >>>parliament - where doubtless your assertion that the Government can >>>renege on agreements and contracts may well be tested - would you
trust a government that broke contracts?
Do you really want to go there Rich? Check out the Labour Manifesto >>published prior to the 2020 election then try to justify '3 Waters'.
This is the only time we had a single-party Government and it ended
badly.
The 3 Waters proposals did not contravene any government contracts or
formal agreements. What are you talking about?
All governments pass legislation that the opposition do not like; but
very few actively seek to trash contracts or formal agreements.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 17:32:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:09:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:So you did not read the manifesto Rich. That is supposed to be a
On Tue, 14 May 2024 09:46:49 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:18:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:We do however expect Parliament to pay due respect to our laws, and
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunal >>>>>>>should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>>>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>>>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>>>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>>>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>>>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>>>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans: >>>>>>>>* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>>>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us. >>>>>>>>* your guess?
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes >>>>>>arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>>>>>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its >>>>>>legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to >>>>>legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the >>>>>supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each >>>>>new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that >>>>>preceded it.
the decision of the High Court to allow a Minister to not appear when >>>>summoned to the Waitangi Tribunal has been overturned: >>>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/court-of-appeal/
In the meantime the objectionable legislation has been rushed into >>>>parliament - where doubtless your assertion that the Government can >>>>renege on agreements and contracts may well be tested - would you
trust a government that broke contracts?
Do you really want to go there Rich? Check out the Labour Manifesto >>>published prior to the 2020 election then try to justify '3 Waters'.
This is the only time we had a single-party Government and it ended >>>badly.
The 3 Waters proposals did not contravene any government contracts or >>formal agreements. What are you talking about?
contract with the electorate on what the party will do if elected to
Govern. Labour was.
All governments pass legislation that the opposition do not like; but
very few actively seek to trash contracts or formal agreements.
Labour did Rich. They passed legislation to implement an unannounced
policy Rich. Not the first time this has happened, but don't bang on
about Governments honouring contracts.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:18:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>I would not trust a government that failed to break a bad contract - the Treaty is of course not a contract. So maybe you should explain which contract you are referring to, eh?
wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:We do however expect Parliament to pay due respect to our laws, and
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunalhttps://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us. >>>>>* your guess?
should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes
arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its >>>legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to
legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the >>supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each
new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that
preceded it.
the decision of the High Court to allow a Minister to not appear when >summoned to the Waitangi Tribunal has been overturned: >https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/court-of-appeal/
In the meantime the objectionable legislation has been rushed into
parliament - where doubtless your assertion that the Government can
renege on agreements and contracts may well be tested - would you
trust a government that broke contracts?
On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:09:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Nobody is trashing anything.
wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 09:46:49 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:18:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:We do however expect Parliament to pay due respect to our laws, and
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunal >>>>>>should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans:
* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us. >>>>>>>* your guess?
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes >>>>>arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>>>>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its >>>>>legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to >>>>legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the >>>>supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each >>>>new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that >>>>preceded it.
the decision of the High Court to allow a Minister to not appear when >>>summoned to the Waitangi Tribunal has been overturned: >>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/court-of-appeal/
In the meantime the objectionable legislation has been rushed into >>>parliament - where doubtless your assertion that the Government can >>>renege on agreements and contracts may well be tested - would you
trust a government that broke contracts?
Do you really want to go there Rich? Check out the Labour Manifesto >>published prior to the 2020 election then try to justify '3 Waters'.
This is the only time we had a single-party Government and it ended
badly.
The 3 Waters proposals did not contravene any government contracts or
formal agreements. What are you talking about?
All governments pass legislation that the opposition do not like; but
very few actively seek to trash contracts or formal agreements.
On Tue, 14 May 2024 20:21:21 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 17:32:01 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 15:09:37 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:So you did not read the manifesto Rich. That is supposed to be a
On Tue, 14 May 2024 09:46:49 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:18:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:04:36 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:We do however expect Parliament to pay due respect to our laws, and >>>>>the decision of the High Court to allow a Minister to not appear when >>>>>summoned to the Waitangi Tribunal has been overturned: >>>>>https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/court-of-appeal/
On Sun, 12 May 2024 15:49:31 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:42:33 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
Hopefully the Government will consider how the Waitangi Tribunal >>>>>>>>should be restructured so that its remit is narrowed.https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/tribunal-releases-report-on-oranga-tamariki-section-7aa-urgent-inquiry/
In summary:
Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or >>>>>>>>>recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s >>>>>>>>>consideration:
* the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the >>>>>>>>>implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements >>>>>>>>>has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty; >>>>>>>>>* the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will >>>>>>>>>cause actual harm; and
* the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B >>>>>>>>>of the Act.
So which arguments will each party use to justify their plans: >>>>>>>>>* It is "pretty legal"
* Contracts can't last more than 100 years anyway.
* Parliament makes the rules not Maori
* We rule for all New Zealanders
* It isn't really a contract, and the people that signed it are all >>>>>>>>>dead now anyway.
* This government did not make the contract, it does not apply to us. >>>>>>>>>* your guess?
Since all the Tribunal does is adjudicate on legitimate disputes >>>>>>>arising from the Treaty, that may amount to just the same obligations. >>>>>>>Would you trust a government that did not act in accordance with its >>>>>>>legal contracts?
We have had debates in the past on whether Governments are a party to >>>>>>legal contracts. I have always maintained that our Government is the >>>>>>supreme law-making body for New Zealand, and with few exceptions each >>>>>>new Government is not bound by the actions of the Governments that >>>>>>preceded it.
In the meantime the objectionable legislation has been rushed into >>>>>parliament - where doubtless your assertion that the Government can >>>>>renege on agreements and contracts may well be tested - would you >>>>>trust a government that broke contracts?
Do you really want to go there Rich? Check out the Labour Manifesto >>>>published prior to the 2020 election then try to justify '3 Waters'. >>>>This is the only time we had a single-party Government and it ended >>>>badly.
The 3 Waters proposals did not contravene any government contracts or >>>formal agreements. What are you talking about?
contract with the electorate on what the party will do if elected to >>Govern. Labour was.
What strange ideas you have. No government can predict all internal
and external events; all policies have to be reviewed and amended as >appropriate. The Key government did not plan on the GFC - it forced
them to admit that the previous government had left the country in a
good financial position; the Covid pandemic had not been anticipated
at the previous election. External events can make quite a difference
from what governments said in an election campaign. Many items now
included in a coalition agreement would have hardly been noticed by
voters during the election campaign, and certainly policies like
abandoning the reduction in smoking horrified many - it was an idea
from a single party that was not expected to be part of government.
That is a lie. You know it and so do we all.All governments pass legislation that the opposition do not like; but >>>very few actively seek to trash contracts or formal agreements.
Labour did Rich. They passed legislation to implement an unannounced >>policy Rich. Not the first time this has happened, but don't bang on
about Governments honouring contracts.
As I said, much legislation is not announced before it is worked on
and put to the house. The policies that were objected to by the
Waitangi Tribunal were as far as most voters are concerned not set out
prior to the election.
Labour had plans to fix water issues. So far the current government
have plans for one area only that are being fought even within that
area, but which it is known will not work for the rest of New Zealand.
We still don't know what they plan for other places.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 54:43:50 |
| Calls: | 9,811 |
| Calls today: | 13 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,190,661 |